* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What does this have to do with RCU?So, do you think a reply to a patch along the lines of[...] Second, from my point of view all contributors are volunteersThis is one of the weirdest arguments i've seen in this thread. Almost all
(perhaps their employer volunteered them, but there's no difference from
my perspective). Asking them to repaint my apartment as a condition to
get a patch applied is abuse. If a patch is good, it gets applied.
the time do we make contributions conditional on the general shape of the
project. Developers dont get to do just the fun stuff.
NAK. Improving scalability is pointless while we don't have a decent GUI.
I'll review you RCU patches
_after_ you've contributed a usable GUI.
?
I'm talking about KVM, which is a Linux kernel feature that is useless without
a proper, KVM-specific app making use of it.
RCU is a general kernel performance feature that works across the board. It
helps KVM indirectly, and it helps many other kernel subsystems as well. It
needs no user-space tool to be useful.
KVM on the other hand is useless without a user-space tool.
[ Theoretically you might have a fair point if it were a critical feature of
RCU for it to have a GUI, and if the main tool that made use of it sucked.
But it isnt and you should know that. ]
Had you suggested the following 'NAK', applied to a different, relevant
subsystem:
| NAK. Improving scalability is pointless while we don't have a usable
| tool. I'll review you perf patches _after_ you've contributed a usable
| tool.
That is my precise point.This is a basic quid pro quo: new features introduce risks and createFor a given area, yes. [...]
additional workload not just to the originating developer but on the rest
of the community as well. You should check how Linus has pulled new
features in the past 15 years: he very much requires the existing code to
first be top-notch before he accepts new features for a given area of
functionality.
KVM is a specific subsystem or "area" that makes no sense without the
user-space tooling it relates to. You seem to argue that you have no 'right'
to insist on good quality of that tooling - and IMO you are fundamentally
wrong with that.