Linux

9040 readers

557 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

149

Linus Torvalds Rejects RISC-V Changes For Linux 6.17: "Garbage" (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/linux@programming.dev

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

getting called out will make the person really review their next submission.

Yeah or they'll say "fuck this" and quit.

The expectation that somebody always has to be nice to you while you fuckup, is not ideal.

It's hardly a fuck up. They named a function slightly poorly. As if Linus has never done that.

[–] JamonBear@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cmon, this is not about naming, this is about non-generic code in generic header.

IMO hiding such a little operation behind a macro/function just hurt readability. Furthermore, considering that this function is only used once in the provided patch and that word ordering on RISC-V is not about to change anytime soon, it is perfectly fine to inline the code.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this is about non-generic code in generic header.

(a << 16) | b is about the most generic code you can get. How is that remotely RISC-V specific?

[–] zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Making a u32 ~~pointer~~ from two u16's isn't a generic operation because it has to make assumptions about ~~how the pointers work~~ endianess

Edit: Actually, I'm wrong, didn't think this through properly. See the replies

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What makes you think it's making a pointer? Nobody said anything about that.

[–] zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh my bad I don't know where I got that from lol

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

Nw. You're also wrong about endianness. This function would be written exactly the same irrespective of endianness:

uint32_t u16_high_low_to_u32(uint16_t high, uint16_t low) {
  return (high << 16) | low;
}

That is endian agnostic.

[–] nocteb@feddit.org 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They named a function slightly poorly. As if Linus has never done that.

Not only that. They introduced a obscure function, which inner workings are not clear and that is only used by their new code into a global header which is used by many other code parts, which means other people could start using it. This could lead to bugs since the semantics are not clear from the function name or if they change the function in the future. Also they added their pull request much too late to be properly reviewed.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also that it was requested earky if it was going to be submitted.

Seems like Linus is accusing them of doing it last minute because they wanted to take advantage of him being busy as an intentional strategy, as he said and they didn't even submit a good offering.

That last bit kind of sounds up that he might have accepted in spite of his difficulty due to travel, but they also fucked that up and wasted a whole lot of effort.

This really seems like a public lesson for everyone else using this submission as an example of what he does not want other people to do and then proceeds to explain exactly how he feels about it.

It's definitely a rant, did seem like it had a purpose to it beyond him just letting out a rant

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I read is rant, seems more than just a poor naming issue