Re: [PATCH 0/8] Make PDX compression optional

[Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:06:26PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.07.2023 14:58, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > I believe the burden of proof is reversed. Features bring complexity, and
> > complexity increases the chances of introducing bugs. It's the presence of
> > a feature that ought to be backed by a proof-of-requirement, not its
> > absence.
> 
> The feature was introduced to support hardware a partner of ours was
> working on at the time. Xen wouldn't have worked very well there
> without these additions. It is beyond my control or knowledge whether
> any such system has ever made it into the public. So at the time of
> its introduction, the need for this code was well justified imo.
> 
> Jan
Oh, of course. I don't question the legitimacy of its introduction at all,
nor do I question the matter of its optional presence. I do question the
default considering the public data we have available.

Alejandro