On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:05:26AM -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:

quoted

quoted

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