Hello, Chen. On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 09:30:13AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > As an integrator or large source code maintainer, we cannot only depend > on testing, or tracing log, or some short directly causes; we also need > find and solve issues by checking sub-systems' interface or documents.
Do you seriously think that you're the only one thinking the above? You're repeating something obvious. The problem is that that's *all* you're doing. Anyone who has *some* coding experience would know that and you didn't move even an inch forward from there. What you have done is obvious from your initial commit message, you read some random piece of code, found something slightly inconsistent with your concept of ideal construction, grepped a bit, and whipped up that patch. It's such a perfect cliche of inexperience. It's something immediately obvious and *exactly* why you were asked to actually try out your hypothesis. It was supposed to serve two purposes - either proving or disproving your patch && if your knee-jerk patch was wrong, which I thought was likely given the circumstances, making you think *why* you got it wrong and learn from the experience. When asked to actually verify your patch, you thought it was something you were unfairly asked to do, and when your previous analysis was shown to be wrong as so easily predicted, instead of thinking about why you got that wrong and learning from the experience, you're now just repeating the same crap in the opposite direction. You're missing massive amount of steps between recognizing that something is inconsistent and producing a proper improvement for it and failing to recognize your shortcoming even when it failed right in front of your face. You need to understand how the subsystem and code actually work before making changes, study the callers and history of the code especially if the code has been stable / stale for long period of time, verify your assumptions using objective measures, and present that in your patch. For a patch like this, preferably with some risk analysis. So, please take some time to mull over why your initial patch was completely wrong and I didn't even have to read the code to predict that your patch has high chance of being wrong. Now, you're doing the *exactly* same thing in the opposite direction. You should be able to recognize that there's something very wrong with that. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/