no, you're wrong. how do you think we developed our code? did all the 8+ MB worth of it pop out of our head all at once? or more realistically, did we develop the features piece by piece, not unlike how upstream linux is developed?

> They have very specific "chunks" of functionality which are quite invasive, by design.

define invasive. linux itself has 'quite invasive' features too yet that didn't prevent them from being developed and upstreamed, so not sure what you were trying to imply here.

> This goes against the model the Linux kernel is developed, so the two development > communities are simply mutually exclusive.

this narrative only exists in your head, not in reality. our work is as much upstreamable as any other kernel code that went in over the years (how else do you think some of it could get in already?), it's just that it can't be done in one's free time.

Other people have gotten large changes into the kernel before, but they require interfacing with the kernel devs and agreeing to certain changes first. Nobody's going to accept a patch just because Google wants it for one of its products. And Google isn't going to change its product patches just so they can fit in mainline.