CGL and the Linux Foundation

[cherry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Cherry)]

> 
> I would appreciate if you could provide some specific examples  
> (perhaps from the CGL 4.0 spec) of NTT requirements whose  
> implementations were explicitly rejected by the kernel community.  I  
> greatly appreciate NTT's involvement with CGL and the LF.  Further, I  
> know that the kernel community values the input of end users like NTT  
> in specifying where the Linux kernel is not adequate today.

I'm not sure if these are NTT specific, but TIPC was rejected by the
kernel community for quite some time.  Other projects that have not
gotten traction in the kernel community include live patching and boot
image fallback.

TIPC was critical for high availability IPC.  It is actually the
backbone of a couple of clustering solutions as well.

Live patching is a servicability/availability requirement makes it
possible to patch a binary while the system is running.  This is
important for online updates with zero downtime.

Boot image fallback provides a way to quickly and gracefully back out
changes.  There are a plethora of issues with this and coming up with a
solution that is acceptable to all has been difficult.

John