From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16789 invoked from network); 2 May 2022 20:33:15 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 May 2022 20:33:15 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 390E89D476; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:33:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442E39D431; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:31:17 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="GsxKwwi4"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BB0F19D431; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:31:14 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f45.google.com (mail-ua1-f45.google.com [209.85.222.45]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 109A39CE23 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:31:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f45.google.com with SMTP id ay15so3255548uab.9 for ; Mon, 02 May 2022 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=09onJ6blZdhRRBug1xmrFZ7z7U2qC9SciXXodKMJ1O8=; b=GsxKwwi49fwd2jmWZPkLnidMiO+AWasWmUWCS9H/Q2CrHICPkYp7SYbKsvzNXFT9yh tMIgIHaztkhXar4zY8XqeXKTfYG7EGPhpLRjImO2MUVcRsX3RaCHRRq1UO0S1kBSy/Sf a2uBfYweDSLhmXPRN1+Vx2xAWavGf+a8fV6BWrxzCHgMFPIo71miOjjuwp6KO1IeuJVB zTSivUgE+y0T4xWdYLJvNQRzUnxFx5dL0/x0mK8XRLcskAE4deRCDTHhNqb9XILBkpw9 X6Q0KKS+gaRJGYfZZvkXPPRqL3ZwYs0ED53Za8uGXqUe3zbk4SK39ajhkboFj6562MKh j8Rw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=09onJ6blZdhRRBug1xmrFZ7z7U2qC9SciXXodKMJ1O8=; b=W8f9YtGCIMKWAWttWWerBMJKZ6bCCM5FDhmDAnhjhzaBjq7r0i2WjeJtrJaFCTiMJx PIdrNNRS2Twogx89+qXvoGYfkY7x2d1FpWVLvJHnUcvRfSkd9C2Tcj+Cxhd1s2GtZeNp 6JZuVOcstKEqB4fhXQcwCAhIn4SesZe88Ogz6MgO65dDw6maq4z8qFu8/otBdcxHXsve peDPynazj1Q7TQ3MMnGaNNOiOHcOcw+giVqpM7RU2MM8lEa7QLFFKOsVNIZq7F+Jdm/E PftGOHF0s93Ptd50SAM7e+zfScRNYszaFRQXEC9oJC5UkhVSGI0OVAkrgltjsMu70Ulu v6DQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ss7Wcz7M9CE0zU3aaM5B81/Us3GI3ia2SOcsWkbyZg0v3h6SW VKadHh4nnUK3/CACXwOLArmMDXaqv6LsVLck4YCq9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyL7OcomXLbEKrd+Wdcc8iVei3s+aO1xctb8eWU3nJiZTOUusSN/lTkUjPgxfMaHsKuRVZrSnXev+tZlTELVGY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6f8f:0:b0:35d:5045:46c4 with SMTP id f15-20020ab06f8f000000b0035d504546c4mr3328077uav.116.1651523471971; Mon, 02 May 2022 13:31:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57977CE7-DDCC-4861-BBD2-843B9B9F51C2@ronnatalie.com> <202205020242.2422g30m074857@ultimate.com> <2815597f-e1f2-498f-b0c3-763952ac734e@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 14:31:00 -0600 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e2a75705de0d45fb" Subject: Re: [TUHS] First Unix-like OSes not derived from AT&T code? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000e2a75705de0d45fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:41 AM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 10:46 AM tytso wrote: > >> So it appears that it was not a >> matter of "the upstream Linux kernel team.... [being] willing to take >> the VPROC changes", it was more like no one asked, or prepared patches >> that could be considered by usptream. >> > FWIW: I know that at least 3 people on the OpenSSI team were telling me > they were told to go away. I do not know the details of the interchange, > but doing some Linux work at the time, I too found the reception to kernel > changes to often be a tad cold (it took 10 years to get the core RDMA > support up-streamed). It's possible the way the OpenSSI team asked, the > prayers offered were not acceptable to those in charge at the time. I > don't know, but please be careful here. *They were tried and feel > that they were rejected.* *That is history*. I understand that you > want to try to say, well there is no evidence of the proper emails/git > change, *etc.* But that team ran into blocks. So you can be a lawyer > about it, or you can try to accept what actually happened to those of us on > the other end with some grace. > I know from wearing my FreeBSD hat that random people on mailing lists often say 'nope' and people go away not realizing they aren't the abitors of what gets into FreeBSD. We lost a lot of good contributions because of delays created by scenarios like this... I also know that getting changes into Linux suffers from this and for a long time (especially pre-git) was almost impossible unless you knew someone and were on good terms with them. Also, people will get frustrated after one or two things don't go up and they don't do the rest. Or they do one big huge thing that's impossible to review (maybe it went to the wrong place) and they give up too unless there's an 'advocate' that works with them to make the changes bite-sized and sorts out the wheat from the chaff that's almost always in huge change sets. The process that was documented was hit or miss. Plus lkm wasn't the nicest of places with the best of interactions, which put off a lot of people from even trying... Much has been done to improve things in the last 20 years, but for a while things were truly awful for someone without a huge reputation to get anything non-trivial into Linux. Even today, projects following the Linux model can be difficult to land changes in, even when you are nominally the maintainer of a part of the tree... VPROC was done for 2.6, which is long enough ago to be in the 'bad old days' of getting things upstreamed. It wouldn't surprise me at all that enough things were done wrong, and/or they listened to the wrong people and/or submitted things in the wrong place they the OpenSSI folks just gave up in frustration early on w/o getting the right people's attention... Warner --000000000000e2a75705de0d45fb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:41 AM Clem C= ole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:


On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 10:46 AM tytso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
So it appears that it was not a
matter of "the upstream Linux kernel team.... [being] willing to take<= br> the VPROC changes", it was more like no one asked, or prepared patches=
that could be considered by usptream.
FWIW:=C2=A0 I know that at least 3 people on the OpenSSI team = were telling me they were told to go away.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I do not know the de= tails of the interchange, but doing some Linux work at the time, I too foun= d the reception to kernel changes to often be a tad cold (it took 10 years = to get the core RDMA support up-streamed). It's possible the=C2=A0way t= he=C2=A0OpenSSI team asked, the prayers offered were not acceptable to thos= e in=C2=A0charge at the time.=C2=A0 I don't know, but please be careful= =C2=A0here. They were tried and feel that=C2=A0they were rejected.=C2=A0 =C2=A0That is history.=C2=A0 I understand that yo= u want to try to=C2=A0say, well there is no evidence of the proper emails/g= it change, etc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0But that team ran into blocks.=C2=A0 So = you can be a lawyer about it, or you can try to accept=C2=A0what actually h= appened to those of us on the other end with some grace.

I know from wearing my FreeBS= D hat that random people on mailing lists often say 'nope' and peop= le go away not realizing they aren't the abitors of what gets into Free= BSD. We lost a lot of good contributions because of delays created by scena= rios like this...

I also know that getting changes= into Linux suffers from this and for a long time (especially pre-git) was = almost impossible unless you knew someone and were on good terms with them.=

Also, people will get frustrated after one or two= things don't go up and they don't do the rest. Or they do one big = huge thing that's impossible to review (maybe it went to the wrong plac= e) and they give up too unless there's an 'advocate' that works= with them to make the changes bite-sized and sorts out the wheat from the = chaff that's almost always in huge change sets. The process that was do= cumented was hit or miss. Plus lkm wasn't the nicest of places with the= best of interactions, which put off a lot of people from even trying... Mu= ch has been done to improve things in the last 20 years, but for a while th= ings were truly awful for someone without a huge reputation to get anything= non-trivial into Linux. Even today, projects following the Linux model can= be difficult to land changes in, even when you are nominally the maintaine= r of a part of the tree...

VPROC was done for 2.6,= which is long enough ago to be in the 'bad old days' of getting th= ings upstreamed.

It wouldn't surprise me at al= l that enough things were done wrong, and/or they listened to the wrong peo= ple and/or submitted things in the wrong place they the OpenSSI folks just = gave up in frustration early on w/o getting the right people's attentio= n...

Warner=C2=A0
--000000000000e2a75705de0d45fb--