Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?

From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Havoc Pennington <havoc.pennington@gmail.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Subject: Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:46:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6295881.qFxhe0B0Ak@merkaba> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150624080502.GA23842@gmail.com>

Am Mittwoch, 24. Juni 2015, 10:05:02 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>  - Once one (or two) major distros go with kdbus, it becomes a de-facto
> ABI. If the ABI is bad then that distro will hurt from it regardless of
> whether we merge it upstream or not - so technical pressure is there to
> improve it. But if the kernel refuses to merge it, Linux users will get
> hurt disproportionately badly. The kernel not being the first mover with
> a new ABI is absolutely sensible. But once Linux distros have taken the
> initial (non-trivial) plunge, not merging a zero-cost ABI upstream
> becomes more like revenge and obstruction, which is not productive. The
> kernel has very little value without full user-space, after all, so
> within reason the kernel project has to own up to distro ABI mistakes as
> well.

So, in order to merge something that is not accepted upstream yet, is it an 
accepted way to encourage distros to use it nonetheless, to get it upstream 
then anyway as in "as, look, now this and this distro uses it"?

When I read

> Not because I like it so much, but because I think the merge process
> should be  stripped of politics and emotion as much as possible: if an
> initial submission is good and addresses all technical review properly,
> and if the cost to the core kernel is low, then barring alternative,
> fully equivalent and superior patch submissions, rejecting it does more
> harm than good.

I think you didn´t mean it that way, as you state proper technical review as 
a requirement.

Can you clarify?

Still as far as I got it, Andy raised technical concerns which Greg 
outrightly rejected as invalid without any further explaination. That does 
not seem like technical concerns have been properly addressed to me.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7