-----Original Message-----
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:51 AM
To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>
Cc: Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>; devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] New WG proposals: Safety Engineering Process, Linux Developers

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:38 AM Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...> wrote:

Lukas, this discussion does not seem to be appropriate for the mailing list, and if there is sufficient interest - we can use tomorrow's call for this purpose. @Paul Albertella?

In brief, the process which you describe below gets stuck because Linux is not qualified. To accept a kernel patch as a basis for safety claims, given that such a patch inevitably uses existing kernel features, our experience has been that you would need a fully qualified Linux kernel to support the kernel patch development process.

Okay, thanks. Now, I understand why we get stuck. Of course, if we come to the conclusion that a fully qualified Linux kernel (whatever that means; I have no clear semantics for such a term; qualification always happens in the context of a (assumed) system) is required for any feature we may develop, then we really might be stuck.

I resolved that question for the scope that was required for the feature to be integrated. By employing general software engineering arguments, I could limit that to a clearly manageable scope of kernel functionality. If there is interest in how that is resolved, I would suggest just looking at a specific feature and reconsider the challenge we encountered that leads to the point above.

I am not a big fan of meetings; email is often the better means of communication for technical discussions. Only, seldomly, a meeting really adds value to a discussion of in-depth considerations.

Lukas