* David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 07:23:29 +0200 > > > > > * Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > I don't think the speed up of the llvm submission is a > >> > good argument, this sounds to me similar to the "please > >> > apply this patch that reserves this new netlink family in > >> > include/linux/netlink.h, I promise this new subsystem will > >> > be submitted soon though. Meanwhile this will speed up > >> > submission of my userspace software to distributions for > >> > packaging" argument. > >> > >> You're not correct here. I'm not saying 'I promise it will > >> be submitted'. There _were_ already submitted. [...] > > > > And this split-up smaller submissions was requested by David > > Miller, the networking maintainer, so if Pablo wants another > > submission format, he needs to take it up with David - we > > can't do both at once obviously. > > I think that just because I asked the submission size to be > smaller, it does not mean that you can submit things before you > provide the initial user as well. > > And how to work that out and keep the submission size > reasonable is the submitter's problem, not mine. That's a pretty harsh requirement but might be doable technically: Alexei, please submit a series that is large enough to provide self-sufficient functionality as per Pablo's request, but is also small and minimal, as per David's request. If that fails then another route would be to decouple from networking initially and create something new and stand-alone in kernel/ebpf/ (or any other name really), with tracing and perf usecases, with networking integration and code deduplication to be done at the end, when there can be no legitimate argument about its utility. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
