Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, chang.seok.bae@intel.com
References: <20200511045311.4785-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <0186c22a8a6be1516df0703c421faaa581041774.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <20200515164013.GF29995@sasha-vm>
 <c566b89cc3ef6c164160cc56a820abac3fd70839.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <20200518153407.GA499505@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <371e6a92cad25cbe7a8489785efa7d3457ecef3b.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <87v9ksvoaq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200519164853.GA19706@linux.intel.com>
 <7eb45e02-03bf-0af0-c915-794bf49d66d7@cs.unc.edu>
 <87h7w7qy18.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <c5fffcd1-c262-7046-a047-67de2bbccd78@cs.unc.edu>
 <87d06opd3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Don Porter <porter@cs.unc.edu>
Message-ID: <e9a0a521-104b-5c3a-a689-78f878e73d31@cs.unc.edu>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 13:40:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87d06opd3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas,

On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product
>> development, and there are limited hours in the day.  I also hasten to
>> say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact
>> serves as documentation of the experiment.  In contrast, the product of
>> software development is software.  It takes significant time and effort
>> to convert one to the other.  Upstreaming code is of little scientific
>> interest.  But things have changed for our project; we had no users in
>> 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research
>> but inappropriate for production.  For a research artifact with an
>> audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier
>> to maintain and install than a kernel patch.
> 
> I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from
> start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently.

This is a fair point.  We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful 
about this going forward.

>
> Sorry for that innuendo. Now that my anger and general frustration about
> this whole disaster have calmed down, I surely would not write that
> again.

I appreciate you saying so.  Thank you.

I can also understand how frustrating the history was with this feature, 
and we missed an opportunity to help sooner.  There is a lot I still 
don't understand about the process of merging and testing patches in 
this community, but if it makes sense for us to help now, we would be 
willing.

-Don