Re: [PATCHSET v6] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class

[Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>]

On 6/21/24 6:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

>> When we attempted to follow up with you afterwards, we got no responses.
> 
> I just checked and found three private mails from you which ended up in
> the wrong filter dated Feb 1, Feb 9, Feb 16. My bad that I dropped
> them, but definitely not because of desinterest or malice.
> 
> You can of course say you tried and I ignored you, but seriously?
> 
> If you really wanted to get my attention then you exactly know how to
> get it like everyone else who is working with me for decades.

I'll be honest, the only clear and consistent communication we've gotten
about sched_ext was "no, please go away".  You certainly did engage with
face to face discussions, but at the end of the day/week/month the
overall message didn't change.

I think we made a long list of private and public attempts to
collaborate, and at some point we just had to be willing to take no for
an answer.

So, yes, seriously.  It's certainly not hard to find times where I
ignored patches or emails, and I've obviously handed off almost all of
my maintainership work to focus on other kernel topics, but I'm never
comfortable when I watch maintainers try to push 100% of the
collaboration burden onto everyone else around them.

The good news is that every merge window is a new chance to argue with
each other, and I know Linus doesn't want us to save all the arguing for
the start of the merge window, but saying every day is a new chance to
argue sounded less optimistic somehow.

At any rate, I think sched_ext has a good path forward, and I know we'll
keep working together however we can.

-chris