On 2025/08/27 00:33, Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course, we can revert any patch. This patchset has been sent not with the > goal of pure refactoring but it fixes several bugs. Reverting means returning > these bugs back. You should have listened of Matthew and submit separate minimal bug-fixing patches instead of posting huge patches which move code around, change semantics and hidden somewhere deep within fix some bug (and then introduce new bugs). > This patchset was available for review for a long time. There was exactly one review, and no, you were not "happy to rework and to make any patch more better" - you openly rejected Matthew's review. > From my point of view, reverting is not answer and it makes sense to > continue fix bugs and to make CephFS code more stable. Your argument only appears to sound right, but it is detached from the reality I'm living in. Your patches made Ceph less stable. 6.14 had one Ceph-related crash every other week, but 6.15 with your patches made all servers crash within hours. The point is: the Linux kernel was better without your patches. Your patches may have fixed a bug, but have introduced a dozen new bugs, including one that very quickly crashes the whole kernel, one that was really obvious enough, just nobody cared enough to read deeply enough after you rejected Matthew's review. Too bad no maintainer stopped you! Of course, the bug that was fixed by your patch set should be fixed - but not the way you did it. Every aspect of your approach to fixing the bug was bad. The best way forward for you would be to revert this patch set and write a minimal patch that only fixes the bug. If you want to be helpful here, please give this a try. Max
