Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:01:40 +0100 | From | Alain Knaff <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] bzip2/lzma kernel compression |
| |
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Alain Knaff wrote: >> But now I am curious how this will evolve from here. I suppose it will >> soon appear in one of the patch-2.6.28-gitxy.gz under >> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots , and then in an >> 2.6.29-rcx etc. >> Or are there some more other steps involved in between? >> > > Well, Linus opted not to merge it for 2.6.29-rc1, which means it is dead > for this merge cycle.
Too bad :(
For when is the next merge window scheduled (approximatively...)?
What impact does this have on procedure for supplying updates to it? Indeed, I've got a couple of new features in the pipeline that I'd like to add in the new future: - centralizing the switch of kernel compression in a common place (will make it easier to add new compressions once all architectures support the new scheme, without the need of touching all of them). - support for new LZMA variant with "real" magic numbers - support for "no kernel compression" option (people have asked me for this for the case where they have a boot loader that already handles decompression)
> This gives us a couple of options, with the aim > to get it merged into 2.6.30: > > - We can continue to carry it in the -tip tree, which also means it will > be in the linux-next tree. > - We can push it to Andrew Morton for the -mm tree. > - Sam could take it in his kbuild tree.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of those? Personally, I'd prefer a choice that: - allows the most lightweight procedure for updating it (i.e. allows to supply incremental changes, rather than do a "full" release) - is most visible (so that when people ask me for it, I can for example tell them "it's already in the -mm tree, download it from xxx". Oh, and visibility will give it also more test exposure)
> Out of these, I think the kbuild tree is entirely inappropriate. The > selection of the other two is mostly a matter of testing, and which way > will be easier to add the ARM code and other arch support.
Well ease of merging the ARM code in is obviously also a consideration to take into account.
> > -hpa >
Regards,
Alain
| |