On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> Why did you apply this patch? Both Scott and I rejected it. > >> Because its fixing a real issue. If we want to remove PHYS_64BIT support or >> make it optional for the board feel free to send another patch. > > Ok, so if someone posts a patch that works but does things the wrong way, and > that patch gets rejected during reviews, but the submitter doesn't post a > follow-up patch that does things the right way, you're going to apply the > first > patch anyway?
Leaving the code 'broken' I consider worse than slightly improving the situation which the patch does. The original patch for this board port introduced it with CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT set, thus I think it reasonable to take a patch that fixed an issue w/o anyone else putting out a patch. If you really don't want it selected by default send me a patch to remove it and I'll apply. That is far more productive than this discussion. > What about the BSP team's contention that enabling 64-bit support in the > kernel > can drop performance by up to 25% in some situations? We talked about that on > an internal mailing list several months ago. I think this 25% number is bogus. There are cases where it also improves performance. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
