Re: [RFC v2 00/35] optimize cost of inter-process communication

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 03:22:39AM -0500, Bo Li wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 5/30/25 5:33 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Bo,
> >
> > You have outstanding feedback on your v1 from me and Dave Hansen. I'm not
> > quite sure why you're sending a v2 without responding to that.
> >
> > This isn't how the upstream kernel works...
> >
> > Thanks, Lorenzo
> >
> > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 05:27:28PM +0800, Bo Li wrote:

[snip]

> Thank you for your feedback! There might be some misunderstanding.
> According to the feedback in RPAL V1, we rebased the RPAL to the latest
> stable kernel and added an introduction section to explain our
> considerations regarding the process isolation of the RPAL architecture.
>
> Thanks!

Hi Bo,

You need to engage in _conversation_ with maintainers, not simply resend
giant RFC's with changes made based on your interpretation of the feedback.

You've not addressed my comments, you've interpreted them to be 'ok do X,
Y, Z', then done them without a word. This is, again, not how upstream
works. You've seemingly ignored Dave altogether.

Others have highlighted it, but let me repeat what they have (in effect)
said - this is just not mergeable upstream in any way shape or form,
sorry.

It's a NAK and there's just no way it's not a NAK, you're doing too many
crazy things here that are just not acceptable, not to mention the issues
people have raised.

You should have engaged with upstream WAY earlier.

It's a pity you've put so much work into this without having done so, but
I'm afraid you're going to have to maintain this out-of-tree indefinitely.

I hope you can at least can take some lessons from this on how best in
future to engage with upstream (early and often! :)

Thanks, Lorenzo