On 21.03.2025 22:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.03.2025 00:40, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> Evtchn fifos are not needed on smaller systems; the older interface is >>> lightweight and sufficient. Make it possible to disable evtchn fifo. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> >> >> Let me ask a more general question, before considering whether to ack: >> When kconfig was introduced into Xen, the expectation was (iirc) that >> we wouldn't grow its use to the fine grained granularity that it has >> been having in Linux. The more build-time controls we have, the harder >> it is to know whether a certain piece of code was actually included in >> a build someone, say, reports a problem with. Are we knowingly moving >> away from that earlier position? evtchn_fifo.c isn't actually that >> much code to exclude, after all ... > > > I think we need to be more flexible with build-time controls. The extent > to which we should be flexible is an interesting discussion to have. > > However, this patch is not for code size. This code causes unnecessary > runtime anonymous memory allocations, which are highly undesirable. In > fact, it is the primary source of such allocations. Additionally, it > exposes an extra interface to the guest, which is also undesirable > unless necessary. > > In other words, the issue is not the size of the code, but its impact.
This may help if it was said in the description. Jan
