On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:24:44PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > To clarify a fact: I am happy with the patch. I am unhappy with the > > > wrong "naming" that my old > > > employer used and influenced this patch. Also the company is shipping > > > thousands of devices per > > > year where these patches are used. > > > > Further clean-ups and clarifications to the support here in terms of > > what it does and doesn't provide are good. But to the point on reviews, > > yes, I do wish we had more people interested in various areas, and with > > time to devote to reviewing code as well. Sadly, we don't always, and I > > took this particular set of patches as being small enough of a global > > impact while (hopefully!) making future contributions both in this area > > and the related platforms using it more likely. > > I understand your sentiment but even feedback for things like having > it behind a Kconfig option to opt into, especially for a default on > option, and CI weren't even addressed, it was just landed without > additional revisions. I feel some of those negate the "just land it" > sentiment.
I went back and forth on if it should get a Kconfig option, but the size increase was very small (200-300 bytes) which is below the "gate this for size" reasons. I have a harder time with "gate this for security reasons" when "go modify memory however you want" is a default enabled command, and if you're already using NFS in your bootloader you had better have already taken some precautions. But I'm also agreeable with your RFC to disable NFS command by default. > > Peter -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
