Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] sbm: SandBox Mode documentation

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:31:12PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:11:05 +0100
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:55:24PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > OK, so why didn't I send the whole thing?
> > > 
> > > Decomposition of the kernel requires many more changes, e.g. in linker
> > > scripts. Some of them depend on this patch series. Before I go and
> > > clean up my code into something that can be submitted, I want to get
> > > feedback from guys like you, to know if the whole idea would be even
> > > considered, aka "Fail Fast".  
> > 
> > We can't honestly consider this portion without seeing how it would
> > work, as we don't even see a working implementation that uses it to
> > verify it at all.
> > 
> > The joy of adding new frameworks is that you need a user before anyone
> > can spend the time to review it, sorry.
> 
> Thank your for a quick assessment. Will it be sufficient if I send some
> code for illustration (with some quick&dirty hacks to bridge the gaps),
> or do you need clean and nice kernel code?

We need a real user in the kernel, otherwise why would we even consider
it?  Would you want to review a new subsystem that does nothing and has
no real users?  If not, why would you want us to?  :)

thanks,

greg k-h