On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:05:26AM -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > > I've invested significant time in kernel patches in the past, only to > > > see them ultimately not be accepted, so I would need to know that > > > upstream was truly interested in such a feature before I would consider > > > making such a commitment. > > > > That's not fair, there is no way anyone can promise anyone that their > > patches will be accepted, _before_ anyone sees them. What would _you_ > > do if you were in the kernel maintainer's position and read something > > like this? > > You're right, but that isn't what I intended to say. Basically, I can't > afford to invest the time in implementing something if the subsystem > maintainers have no interest in the *functionality*, regardless of the > state of the code. I.e., if the ATA/LED subsystem maintainers think > that software-controlled disk activity LEDs are stupid and have no > place in the kernel, then code quality is irrelevant, and anything I do > will be a waste of time. Again, without a real patch, no maintainer or developer will ever say if they will, or will not, accept such a thing. That's just not how kernel development works. Working patches are what is discussed as that proves that at least, the idea works. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
