On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:28 PM, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:

From: Ingo Molnar <redacted>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 07:23:29 +0200

quoted

* Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

I don't think the speed up of the llvm submission is a good
argument, this sounds to me similar to the "please apply this
patch that reserves this new netlink family in
include/linux/netlink.h, I promise this new subsystem will be
submitted soon though. Meanwhile this will speed up
submission of my userspace software to distributions for
packaging" argument.

You're not correct here. I'm not saying 'I promise it will be
submitted'. There _were_ already submitted. [...]

And this split-up smaller submissions was requested by David
Miller, the networking maintainer, so if Pablo wants another
submission format, he needs to take it up with David - we can't
do both at once obviously.

I think that just because I asked the submission size to be smaller,
it does not mean that you can submit things before you provide the
initial user as well.

And how to work that out and keep the submission size reasonable is
the submitter's problem, not mine.

imo llvm is more than enough for the first user, no?
I think I've explained that it's practically impossible to have
first in-tree user in the first patch. What do you suggest?
I'm listening, but currently I see no way out.
The patch was large. I broke it down. The first patch is as tiny
as it can get, but Pablo is stalling it, like he did for the last year.
Honestly it doesn't feel fair.
When there were technical arguments (like global vs fd) or
(union attr vs long for syscall) I've listened and rewrote things.
Now it doesn't sound technical.