Seeking advice on "monkey patching" a driver

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:05:26AM -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > > I've invested significant time in kernel patches in the past, only to
> > > see them ultimately not be accepted, so I would need to know that
> > > upstream was truly interested in such a feature before I would consider
> > > making such a commitment.
> > 
> > That's not fair, there is no way anyone can promise anyone that their
> > patches will be accepted, _before_ anyone sees them.  What would _you_
> > do if you were in the kernel maintainer's position and read something
> > like this?
> 
> You're right, but that isn't what I intended to say.  Basically, I can't
> afford to invest the time in implementing something if the subsystem
> maintainers have no interest in the *functionality*, regardless of the
> state of the code.  I.e., if the ATA/LED subsystem maintainers think
> that  software-controlled disk activity LEDs are stupid and have no
> place in the kernel, then code quality is irrelevant, and anything I do
> will be a waste of time.

Again, without a real patch, no maintainer or developer will ever say if
they will, or will not, accept such a thing.  That's just not how kernel
development works.  Working patches are what is discussed as that proves
that at least, the idea works.

thanks,

greg k-h