These are general purpose processors and there are plans to deploy them widely across Russian civil service and major state owned banks.
They are indeed sub-par compared to Intel or ARM however in the present situation Russia is faced with a choice between importing electronics through grey channels and developing its own national product even if it is subpar to what would have been normally available.
I personally very much hope the 2nd choice is taken, domestically designed processors take hold and the world gets a new choice of hardware to use.
AFAIK the Linux Foundation is a US non-profit, and many core kernel developers, such as Linus Torvalds and Greg KH reside in the United States.
I think almost no one agrees that it should be completely separate; there should be some distance, yes, but all these things do exist in the same reality and that can't always just be ignored. Should Linux also accept North-Korean patches for their ICBMs in mainline? Probably not. They can't prevent Linux from being used in them, but they also have no obligation to go our of their way to review, merge, and maintain the code for it.
There is a lot of grey area and you can argue about the specifics of various situations for ages, but there clearly is a point where politics and the intended purpose of patches do matter.
While NK is probably not looking to merge their `char/icbm` driver to the mainline tree, what about the NK military fixing a nasty bug in the memory allocator? Should the patch be rejected even if it improves a non-military subsystem, just because of who wrote it?
It's just food-for-thought, personally I do not care one way or the other. As you say, it's all a grey area, and there is not a clear answer, which is where politics and posturing, rather than pragmatism, thrives.
Somehow I should be agreeable to US weapons teams mainlining patches say for whatever weapon killed that random.man and his children during the fall of Kabul. But not a nasty North Koreans?
Is the discomfort based on technical, or legal, or moral/political reasoning?
What the community could be doing instead of refusing useful patches enhancing support for an IP-core licensed from a western company is working with Baikal developers to ensure that desktops/laptops built on their hardware include no closed source software blobs anywhere in the drivers or in EEPROM.
How often do we have an opportunity like this?
http://techrights.org/2022/10/27/red-hat-lockheed-martin-ray...
Because the patch was actually published already fully (in the mail list), if I understand it correctly.
