Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] riscv: Support compiling the kernel with more extensions

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > > see why this particular optimisation was worth maintaining 3 code paths
> > 
> > I interpreted the "3 code paths" as with Zbb + 64 bit, with Zbb + 32
> > bit, and without Zbb. I directly responded to that by saying that we
> > could eliminate all of the code paths that are not Zbb + 64 bit could be
> > eliminated.

Argh, forgot to say that that was what I meant by the 3 paths, but I
didn't take
| We could just say we don't care about performance if you are running
| 32-bit linux or don't have Zbb, but we would be making that decision
| because we don't feel like maintaining the code. The code was written,
| tested, reviewed, and it provided large performance gains. I fail to
| understand why this is a burden to maintain.
as seriously suggesting that we should remove anything, it read like a
defence of the current code!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]