Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:48:33 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] net: bcmasp: fix memory leak when bringing down if | From | Justin Chen <> |
| |
On 4/17/24 9:52 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/17/24 09:19, Simon Horman wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:46:44PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: >>>>>> When bringing down the TX rings we flush the rings but forget to >>>>>> reclaimed the flushed packets. This lead to a memory leak since we >>>>>> do not free the dma mapped buffers. … >>>>> >>>>> I find this change description improvable. >>>>> >>>>> * How do you think about to avoid typos? >>>>> >>>>> * Would another imperative wording be more desirable? >>>> >>>> The change description makes sense to me. Can you be a bit more >>>> specific as to what isn't clear here? >>> >>> Spelling suggestions: >>> + … forget to reclaim … >>> + … This leads to … >> >> Markus, let's cut to the chase. >> >> What portion of your responses of this thread were produced >> by an LLM or similar technology? >> >> The suggestions in your second email are correct. >> But, ironically, your first response appears to be grammatically >> incorrect. >> >> Specifically: >> >> * What does "improvable" mean in this context? > > I read it as "improbable", but this patch came out of an actual bug > report we had internally and code inspection revealed the leaks being > plugged by this patch. > >> * "How do you think about to avoid typos?" >> is, in my opinion, grammatically incorrect. >> And, FWIW, I see no typos. > > There was one, "This lead to a memory leak" -> "This leads to a memory > leak" > >> * "Would another imperative wording be more desirable?" >> is, in my opinion, also grammatically incorrect. >> >> And yet your comment is ostensibly about grammar. >> I'm sorry, but this strikes me as absurd. > > Yeah, I share that too, if you are to nitpick on every single word > someone wrote in a commit message, your responses better be squeaky > clean such that Shakespeare himself would be proud of you. > > There is a track record of what people might consider bike shedding, > others might consider useless, and others might find uber pedantic > comments from Markus done under his other email address: > elfring@users.sourceforge.net. > > Me personally, I read his comments and apply my own judgement as to > whether they justify spinning a new patch just to address the feedback > given. He has not landed on my ignore filter, but of course that can > change at a moments notice.
I try my best to address feedback. After a bit of thought, I feel the feedback given was not out of good faith. I would like to keep the patch as-is unless someone else has feedback. That is if the maintainers are ok with that.
Thanks, Justin
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |