From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE332018A for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751830AbcF0QtJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:49:09 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:35461 "EHLO mail-it0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751713AbcF0QtH (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:49:07 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g127so69383350ith.0 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:49:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=virdVk5OM8zsj8SW0J/WvmjqQ5WMhXKrjCUuK9qYOqQ=; b=iOMv+2ASGMwdUtz6muyQHBjY9qee8YSoEIDsKHwWE3cwyYEFGU2CncQ9vGa/aRB9Jf S0qQXAmp8bS/aD5ebp0Z01W5S++7QeF5l1GzFE9FZMrpV491uZYQcZNco4TxjweTlK4m Je/zcxlYiIPizNKvvpqh4NNV8yi+zWClKQphQ6wcCKFxArH7EIfiiNHwNplIEF5Dc9E8 3hCqk6a4ZHuAIoX19XIAnKT4l1DDOqK+P8uYFQ6JioLWIizdbcoxc112Y9XUInmQKiy0 FYmcqtfRb+QBR6vQ0vuJ/FFPgQYNZ4a8E4XBAR1vDLq96wsp8hmauqUb/k4cTjC9rmki InLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=virdVk5OM8zsj8SW0J/WvmjqQ5WMhXKrjCUuK9qYOqQ=; b=WIpWWy73ZgHM4egNMDXOp6divItgE3m3QpDXAzjWCygGQ4s2kUWfpXx62YMq07yNPb lbItrOh4S1aAjY5Dm1890C/tKZ8GN2/aiLcJ/f+gYKO+NAtDf+AApjEg0sXLSqo7IfMe 7H1h6RdbpUCcxc9Zb/yyqB2Z6kI0KVLMrjnzRY8wbXmt3gns3w0TxjVXv4iYWI8d4P4c Zj/0YgdtBwygUD7rnoCDhxa88alsSm66uwwu0XoxxzrtMxZGuI7fJsOwQeDoLHFBQ4Rs 2nizaukvrS6Bh9pGjAAs3KXEHLItLSDyA5Z6USoJozpMosudx8GI4Tux/sLC/WYw81i2 TMzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLuOBvqM0COt2ndA/F3Ak0+JwBREMpL9wD9ApCZJUkjwL63dpnLrDako85J74/Wxw8BMDRIxYJJO5m5HMJ7 X-Received: by 10.36.29.81 with SMTP id 78mr9176014itj.97.1467046146636; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.136.16 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160627143648.GA2618@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160626232112.721-1-e@80x24.org> <20160626232112.721-2-e@80x24.org> <20160626234251.GA21668@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160627143648.GA2618@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Stefan Beller Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:49:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xread: retry after poll on EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Eric Wong , "git@vger.kernel.org" , Johannes Sixt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:02:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King writes: >> >> > I also wondered how we managed to miss such an obvious point in review >> > of the original patch. Sadly, we _did_ notice it[1] but it looks like we >> > never fixed the problem. That is even more disturbing. >> >> Yes indeed. >> >> I try to pay attention to "this is broken because..." comments in >> discussions to make a note in my copy of "What's cooking" report for >> a problematic topic, as that is where I work from when merging >> topics down, but apparently that procedure failed work in this case. >> There needs a stronger mechanism to stop a known-buggy patch from >> going thru, but I am not sure offhand what that should be. > > I was the one who saw the bug. I could have followed the series more > closely to make sure my concern was addressed. Or possibly pointed out > the bug more prominently than an in a "PS" as part of the discussion. I thought I would have fixed that bug, but apparently I did not. (I agreed on the bug being there at the time of discussion [1], so I guess I can be blamed most for this failure) [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/282514/focus=282694 > > I think part of the problem was that this particular series was > large-ish and involved a lot of re-rolls, and I got sick of looking at > it. I dunno. I haven't send patches to git for quite a while now, but writing smaller patches is the way to go for me. (I am currently looking at the repo tool, that has no test suite, so there too I try to make very small patches.) > > It's also true that our error rate will never be 0%. So some bugs will > always slip through, some review comments will be forgotten, etc. Eric > did find and fix the bug just now, so the "many eyes" theory did work > here eventually. Eric, thanks for catching and fixing the bug! Quite a while ago, when I started doing code reviews professionally, I wondered if the code review procedure can be semi-automated, as automation helps keeping the error rate low. By that I mean having a check list which I can check off each point for each patch. That seems to be very good in theory, but when trying it I was finding myself doing a lot of unneeded work as some points of such a check list just do not apply for a specific patch. So I did not follow through with that. Thanks, Stefan