Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:00:53 -0500 | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Squashfs: add LZ4 compression |
| |
On 07/22/2013 01:04:59 AM, Gu Zheng wrote: > On 07/22/2013 01:07 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote: > > > On 22 July 2013 04:05, Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> Hi Phillip, > >> Have some tests been carried out to confirm that Squashfs > really > >> can get benefit from LZ4 compression, comparing with lzo? > > > > This seems to be a loaded question, in that it seems to be trying to > > reopen the "why add lz4 when we already have lzo" debate all over > > again. As LZ4 has been merged to mainline, this appears to be a > > question that has already been answered. > > No, they are different. LZ4 can be merged to mainline, because we can > see the benefit(faster compressing speed under the enabled unaligned > memory access) it brings to us comparing with lzo. > But it's hard to say that it also really can bring benefit to > Squashfs.
A compression format was added to the kernel. Philip hooked up the code that was already in the kernel to a filesystem that was already in the kernel.
You consider this action controversial...
Rob
| |