Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:39:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:39:56 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:63247 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:39:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Matt D. Robinson" cc: Rusty Russell , , , Subject: Re: What's left over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2011 Lines: 47 On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Matt D. Robinson wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Crash Dumping (LKCD) > > > > This is definitely a vendor-driven thing. I don't believe it has any > > relevance unless vendors actively support it. > > There are people within IBM in Germany, India and England, as well as > a number of companies (Intel, NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu), as well as SGI > that are PAID to support this. That's fine. And since they are paid to support it, they can apply the patches. What I'm saying by "vendor driven" is that it has no relevance for the standard kernel, and since it has no relevance to that, then I have no incentives to merge it. The crash dump is only useful with people who actively look at the dumps, and I don't know _anybody_ outside of the specialized vendors you mention who actually do that. I will merge it when there are real users who want it - usually as a result of having gotten used to it through a vendor who supports it. (And by "support" I do not mean "maintain the patches", but "actively uses it" to work out the users problems or whatever). Horse before the cart and all that thing. People have to realize that my kernel is not for random new features. The stuff I consider important are things that people use on their own, or stuff that is the base for other work. Quite often I want vendors to merge patches _they_ care about long long before I will merge them (examples of this are quite common, things like reiserfs and ext3 etc). THAT is what I mean by vendor-driven. If vendors decide they really want the patches, and I actually start seeing noises on linux-kernel or getting requests for it being merged from _users_ rather than developers, then that means that the vendor is on to something. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/