On 06.10.2023 18:01, 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, following far too much wasted time already, represents. The vote > has already concluded.
In a reply separate from his R-b he also said "I would be fine in leaving the option to be selected if ...", so I don't think you can count tags as votes. As much as you apparently have a hard time seeing why I want the option to remain available (despite knowing why I introduced PDX back at the time), I'm having a hard time seeing why you want it unilaterally off (and I'm afraid I haven't seen any reasoning beyond you simply not liking that code, and you also not having liked my earlier attempts to overcome the undue overhead). Jan
