On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:31:12PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote: > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:11:05 +0100 > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:55:24PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote: > > > OK, so why didn't I send the whole thing? > > > > > > Decomposition of the kernel requires many more changes, e.g. in linker > > > scripts. Some of them depend on this patch series. Before I go and > > > clean up my code into something that can be submitted, I want to get > > > feedback from guys like you, to know if the whole idea would be even > > > considered, aka "Fail Fast". > > > > We can't honestly consider this portion without seeing how it would > > work, as we don't even see a working implementation that uses it to > > verify it at all. > > > > The joy of adding new frameworks is that you need a user before anyone > > can spend the time to review it, sorry. > > Thank your for a quick assessment. Will it be sufficient if I send some > code for illustration (with some quick&dirty hacks to bridge the gaps), > or do you need clean and nice kernel code? We need a real user in the kernel, otherwise why would we even consider it? Would you want to review a new subsystem that does nothing and has no real users? If not, why would you want us to? :) thanks, greg k-h
