From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB26CE95A96 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 11:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.614331.955346 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qpoSz-0000FV-Vo; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:29 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 614331.955346; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qpoSz-0000FO-T5; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:29 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 614331; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:28 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qpoSy-0000FA-Ik for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:28 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qpoSy-0005VX-0S; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:28 +0000 Received: from gw1.octic.net ([88.97.20.152] helo=[10.0.1.240]) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qpoSx-0001ap-Ov; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:30:27 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=wOW9OmiIK/DjWo6WXfbdZcIP+vtPhlOcm0qAiXzHG20=; b=VFeU9LC91jjS1RPDGKEHm/50Su RV0uk6sr2/LYjkHpve4N3pitb/gHAWGp3AsrXZbnq/r+nlQUREz4BoJNHme+zbpZXEz5fGYzsQKq3 aUOesBQqwT/xkxNv/PHx85RfZA88Q/3Kus2Fkblfd9oM4Ne/WRpM4kl0uMLVKRehEpVg=; Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:30:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.18 v5] xen/pdx: Make CONFIG_PDX_COMPRESSION a common Kconfig option Content-Language: en-GB To: Andrew Cooper , Xen-devel Cc: Alejandro Vallejo , Julien Grall , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= , Shawn Anastasio , Oleksii Kurochko , Henry Wang , George Dunlap , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu References: <20231006144405.1078260-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> From: Julien Grall In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 >>> >>> 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