On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 21:52, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:03:10PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > > I absolutely agree that demonstrating a real use case is important. > > However, this is a complicated project that involves changes in many > > parts of the kernel, and we can't deliver everything in one large > > patchset; it has to be divided and addressed incrementally. > > Ok, but then don't expect us to be able to actually review it in any > sane way, sorry. > > Think about it from our side, what would you want to see if you had to > review this type of thing? Remember, some of us get hundreds of things > to review a week, we don't have context for each and every new feature, > and your project does not have the "trust" in that we would even > consider taking anything without any real user both in the kernel and in > public userspace code. > > Breaking up changes in a way that is acceptable upstream is a tough > task, usually harder than the original engineering effort to create the > feature in the first place. But in the end, the result is a better > solution as it will evolve and change along the way based on reviews and > requirements from the different subsystems. > If I may suggest something: typically you'd want to post the whole working PoC on some public git tree for reference and to show the big picture and then start sending out individual bits and pieces for upstream review. This is how many big features have been done in the past. As the reviewed code changes, you adjust the rest of it that wasn't posted yet. Bartosz
