On 06/10/2023 17:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 06/10/2023 4:09 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/10/2023 15:44, Andrew Cooper wrote:
From: Alejandro Vallejo <[email protected]>
Adds a new compile-time flag to allow disabling PDX compression and
compiles out compression-related code/data. It also shorts the pdx<->pfn
conversion macros and creates stubs for masking functions.
While at it, removes the old arch-defined CONFIG_HAS_PDX flag.
Despite the
illusion of choice, it was not optional.
There are ARM and PPC platforms with sparse RAM banks - leave compression
active by default there. OTOH, there are no known production x86
systems with
sparse RAM banks, so disable compression. This decision can be
revisited if
such a platform comes along.
(Process remarks rather than the code itself)
Jan is away this week so I want to make sure this doesn't go in without
him having a say.
While I don't particularly care about the approach taken for x86, Jan
voiced concerned with this approach and so far I didn't see any
conclusion. If there is any, then please point me to them.
For the record, the objections from Jan are in [1]. If we want to ignore
them, then I think we need a vote. Possibly only from the x86 folks (?).
What do you think the 2 x86 maintainer tags on this patch in this exact
form,
Have you actually looked at the timeline before writing this e-mail?
15:44 -> You sent the series
16:09 -> I have asked for a vote/second review
16:18 -> Roger provided a second reviewed-by
> The vote has already concluded.
Indeed. But this was only after my e-mail was sent. I would have replied
differently if Roger had replied before hand.
I am merely trying to make sure we are following the process and don't
get things committed without unnaddressed objections (you likely
remember the series I am talking about...).
Next time, I suggest to check the timeline before implying that I am
putting roadblocks.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
