On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:40:16PM -0400, Don Porter wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product > > > development, and there are limited hours in the day. I also hasten to > > > say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact > > > serves as documentation of the experiment. In contrast, the product of > > > software development is software. It takes significant time and effort > > > to convert one to the other. Upstreaming code is of little scientific > > > interest. But things have changed for our project; we had no users in > > > 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research > > > but inappropriate for production. For a research artifact with an > > > audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier > > > to maintain and install than a kernel patch. > > > > I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from > > start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently. > > This is a fair point. We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful > about this going forward.
Are you going to experiment with this patch set and Graphene? Just sanity checking so that I don't unnecessarily do duplicate work. I ignored most of the discussion since I came here only with the motivation of testing Graphene together with this patch set. I'm assuming that motivation is always good no matter which angle you come from. Thus, I might have missed the part I'm asking. /Jarkko
