Linux 6.7-rc2 Released: "Slightly Larger Than Average"

[AlanTuring69]

He was being responsible, that's why he tried to go around and bypass the people who weren't being helpful

Speaks for itself.

[Quackdoc]

That's just cope. You are responsible for your own actions.

He was being responsible, that's why he tried to go around and bypass the people who weren't being helpful

[AlanTuring69]

kent is rarely the only one involved however, his actions are almost always reactionary there has been many times he has been egged on

That's just cope. You are responsible for your own actions.

[Quackdoc]

So you lack the context as to why Kent is perceived to be difficult to work with. He has received numerous warnings/ultimatums from kernel developers which should only be required for very young people, which Kent is not. This isn't a random hobbyist project, the kernel is a professional product albeit a FOSS one which has many many contributors, however the vast majority of kernel development is funded / professional. Even Linus, who occasionally goes on a rant or similar, is professional 99% of the time.



It's based on months of seeing him act like a child to people who I actually respect. He may improve and I hope he does, but you cannot ignore how he acted and you cannot let him get away with "small things" anymore. The comment he made in isolation is obviously not a big deal at all more of a comment on his behavior as a whole and I have absolutely zero confidence he will remain involved with mainline kernel development. I hope to be wrong.

kent is rarely the only one involved however, his actions are almost always reactionary there has been many times he has been egged on

[AlanTuring69]

I don't know anything about Kent Overstreet or the BcacheFS project so I read the entire posting at the provided link with an open mind.

I seriously question the "salty" comment.

I thought Kent's responses were "measured" (or "terse" if you prefer) and "thoughtfully worded". To be sure, he is probably buried in work and juggling a hundred balls in the air at the same time, so I expected short & to the point responses; I would have probably done the same.

Kernel development is expected to be professional and, as a professional developer, I do not see that with Kent. I hope he does not regress.

I don't know anything about Kent Overstreet or the BcacheFS project so I read the entire posting at the provided link with an open mind.
I think the request for "non-Phoronix benchmarks" is quite reasonable. I do not see that as a slam on Michael; quite the opposite. If BcacheFS performs well across a range of benchmarks from a range of benchmark developers, then it is reasonable to conclude that the benchmarks are not favoring BcacheFS in any way. Of course there is nothing to stop the conspiracy theorists on Moronix from going off the deep end; they will do what they do regardless.

So you lack the context as to why Kent is perceived to be difficult to work with. He has received numerous warnings/ultimatums from kernel developers which should only be required for very young people, which Kent is not. This isn't a random hobbyist project, the kernel is a professional product albeit a FOSS one which has many many contributors, however the vast majority of kernel development is funded / professional. Even Linus, who occasionally goes on a rant or similar, is professional 99% of the time.

To assume any post involving Kent will be "salty" or an "attack" based on his past online postings is quite disingenuous, as if people have already developed an immutable prejudged bias against Kent.

It's based on months of seeing him act like a child to people who I actually respect. He may improve and I hope he does, but you cannot ignore how he acted and you cannot let him get away with "small things" anymore. The comment he made in isolation is obviously not a big deal at all more of a comment on his behavior as a whole and I have absolutely zero confidence he will remain involved with mainline kernel development. I hope to be wrong.

[Quackdoc]

I think Michael didn't check thoroughly the benchmarking process. I would hope Phoronix gets more financing and get someone to help.

It's not Micheal's job to dig through config settings for everything he tests. defaults are defaults for a reason, it's what the user is expected to get shipped, And it's micheals job to showcase that, not to be a poster boy for a new toy that you want to showcase. People want to know what they will wind up getting, if bcachefs isn't shipping sensible defaults, the user won't get sensible results. It's as simple as that.

kent is getting salty.
the generous interpretation is that he wants an independent confirmation of where bcachefs is, performance wise, but it's easy to interpret this as an attack, which kent is well known for.

I didn't take this as an attack? phoronix is a single source like it or not, file systems need hundreds of benchmarks from a large variety of hardware

[Mitch]

I don't know anything about Kent Overstreet or the BcacheFS project so I read the entire posting at the provided link with an open mind.

I seriously question the "salty" comment.

I thought Kent's responses were "measured" (or "terse" if you prefer) and "thoughtfully worded". To be sure, he is probably buried in work and juggling a hundred balls in the air at the same time, so I expected short & to the point responses; I would have probably done the same.

I think the request for "non-Phoronix benchmarks" is quite reasonable. I do not see that as a slam on Michael; quite the opposite. If BcacheFS performs well across a range of benchmarks from a range of benchmark developers, then it is reasonable to conclude that the benchmarks are not favoring BcacheFS in any way. Of course there is nothing to stop the conspiracy theorists on Moronix from going off the deep end; they will do what they do regardless.

To assume any post involving Kent will be "salty" or an "attack" based on his past online postings is quite disingenuous, as if people have already developed an immutable prejudged bias against Kent.

I agree. I take it as a more scientific: "more data from the interested parties". It's just a concept of independent verification. When the Framework 13 AMD came out, there was a consensus view that the AMD chip provided notably better battery than the Intel chips offered in the same machine. However, there were outlier reviews.

It's just good to get more data out there and see where we can rule out outliers and edgecases.

[NotMine999]

kent is getting salty.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/[email protected]/T/#m981e6274611d154fa4b05d6409e12b83e7e09ec5

the generous interpretation is that he wants an independent confirmation of where bcachefs is, performance wise, but it's easy to interpret this as an attack, which kent is well known for.

I don't know anything about Kent Overstreet or the BcacheFS project so I read the entire posting at the provided link with an open mind.

I seriously question the "salty" comment.

I thought Kent's responses were "measured" (or "terse" if you prefer) and "thoughtfully worded". To be sure, he is probably buried in work and juggling a hundred balls in the air at the same time, so I expected short & to the point responses; I would have probably done the same.

I think the request for "non-Phoronix benchmarks" is quite reasonable. I do not see that as a slam on Michael; quite the opposite. If BcacheFS performs well across a range of benchmarks from a range of benchmark developers, then it is reasonable to conclude that the benchmarks are not favoring BcacheFS in any way. Of course there is nothing to stop the conspiracy theorists on Moronix from going off the deep end; they will do what they do regardless.

To assume any post involving Kent will be "salty" or an "attack" based on his past online postings is quite disingenuous, as if people have already developed an immutable prejudged bias against Kent.

[ehansin]

If you believe in the notion that "there is no such thing as bad publicity", take it as a win!

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/there+is+no+such+thing+as+bad+publicity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succ%C3%A8s_de_scandale

[varikonniemi]

Ironic, as in happening contrary to expected and turning out amusing. When testing bcachefs you would not expect btrfs, the mature COW fs, to get corrupted.

I don't think phoronix did anything wrong with the bcachefs benchmark, he simply ran it with default settings. Now bcachefs has changed the defaults, which probably should have happened before submitting to linux