Re: second, sync-alloc syscall

[Len Brown]

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:14 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So if this second syscall doesn't sound really great, I'd say we stick
> to the #NM-based allocation and keep this one in the bag for now and
> take it out only if it turns out that it makes sense as a use case.

I agree.  Simple to add if later, if something requires it --
though given it's modest incremental value, currently hard to justify.

> As tglx said: it is easy to add stuff later. It is a lot harder - even
> impossible - to remove already present machinery.

Indeed.

thanks!
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center