On Friday 2008-12-26 23:57, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>> >>>Steve said [in Feb 2008] he wanted to try to make the solution >>>more scalable so I am awaiting a new patch. >> >>Hm, all I needed was this patch. It might fire up some people, >>but it's got all the scalability I could think of.. > >Jan - there is obviously no way I could apply this patch >so late in the cycle. 2.6.29 just started, did not it. Even if not, just queue it for the next. >The original patch that made this a CONFIG option is >then much better as we avoid forcing new and untested >behaviour on the users. > >We all know that compressing the modules are simple. >And unless someone comes up with *very* good arguments >then we should just use gzip with default parameters. Besides the -9 flag, where would there be nondefault parameters? >If we go for the "keep the .ko extension but compress" >then someone needs to answer the obvious questions: > >- will this break on a typical distribution No; module-init-tools already uses gzopen even on uncompressed files. >- will this break busybox users I did not see any gzip support in there, so the answer is likely "yes, as usual". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
