From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:02:32 +0900 > But in any case, the result would be more complicated to use and > maintain, and it would likely also be less realistic, such that a > sophisticated conformance test might still find that the port was > actually bound. Other users of the kernel wouldn't get to use this > sysctl, and the userspace code can't be easily reused in other > open-source projects, so the community gets nothing useful. That > doesn't seem great. The same argument can be made about kernel changes that are only needed by Android because they refuse to use a userspace solution that frankly can do the job. Can you see why these Android special case discussions are so frustrating for kernel devs? And using the "we'll just have a local kernel change in the Android kernel" threat as leverage in the discussion... yeah very unpleasant indeed.
