![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew, Andrian, If you really have the opinion of not going for major cleanups, optimizations outside of original LZO code (basically a fork), then there is no point in me continuing this work. If you think otherwise, please let me know and I will post a newer version with improvements from all these feedback I got. Thanks, Nitin On 6/5/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote: > > On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@openedhand.com> wrote: > >... > >> The zlib code isn't kernel style and is arguably bloated, perhaps we > >> should remove that? > > > > I don't know - I don't use zlib. > > We can make LZO cleaner and perhaps faster. This will be good. > >... > > "cleaner" = much harder to upgrade to new upstream LZO versions -> bad > > "perhaps faster" = different from the well-known original code and > might again contain new bugs -> bad > > "perhaps faster" = if we fork LZO and actually get it faster, all the > other LZO users will not benefit -> bad > > > zlib and LZO are special because they are maintained userspace code > imported into the kernel. > > > > Regards, > > Nitin > > cu > Adrian > > -- > > "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out > of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. > "Only a promise," Lao Er said. > Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-06-05 05:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||