On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:06:26PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 18.07.2023 14:58, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > I believe the burden of proof is reversed. Features bring complexity, and > > complexity increases the chances of introducing bugs. It's the presence of > > a feature that ought to be backed by a proof-of-requirement, not its > > absence. > > The feature was introduced to support hardware a partner of ours was > working on at the time. Xen wouldn't have worked very well there > without these additions. It is beyond my control or knowledge whether > any such system has ever made it into the public. So at the time of > its introduction, the need for this code was well justified imo. > > Jan Oh, of course. I don't question the legitimacy of its introduction at all, nor do I question the matter of its optional presence. I do question the default considering the public data we have available.
Alejandro
