* Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > It is far more efficient if Roland, Oleg (or you, if you are
> > interested in this stuff - which you seem to be) did RFC patches and
> > asked for maintainer acks, than to depend on maintainers to do it.
>
> This has been on offer since the first user_regset stuff went into
> 2.6.25, and I think I reiterated that on linux-arch when
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK went in.
>
> What it does require is some arch person to at least show interest
> in seeing the patches, test-build them and/or point to usable
> cross compiler setups, etc. It doesn't have to be arch
> maintainers, but someone at all who uses the arch and is prepared
> to build kernels for it.
>
> In the case of arm, the fine Fedora/ARM folks had already made it
> easy enough for me to do two web searches and find the cross
> compilers, qemu settings, and system images I could get going
> lickety-split without even asking anyone for pointers. But as hch
> noted, even doing 95% of the work myself up front (built and
> tested!) hasn't yet helped get any feedback.
>
> For any arch where there is anyone out there but the crickets,
> it's easy for me to help with the actual code. I just need a
> little direction on arch build setups and maybe some specific arch
> details questions, and a little feedback. But where the only
> people you can find who've heard of an arch say, "We haven't
> looked what's upstream since 2.6.22 or so," I don't want to waste
> my time on untried patches that will just go stale without ever
> being compiled.
that's OK. If you went so far, if you were proactive and did due
diligence, and nobody bothered, just push the changes into
linux-next and there's no valid basis for future objections against
those patches.
Ingo
