On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:25:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > What's this "with enabled unaligned memory access" thing? You mean "if > the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS"? If so, > that's only x86, which isn't really in the target market for this > patch, yes? > > It's a lot of code for a 50ms boot-time improvement. Does anyone have > any opinions on whether or not the benefits are worth the cost? Well... when I saw this my immediate reaction was "oh no, yet another decompressor for the kernel". We have five of these things already. Do we really need a sixth? My feeling is that we should have: - one decompressor which is the fastest - one decompressor for the highest compression ratio - one popular decompressor (eg conventional gzip) And if we have a replacement one for one of these, then it should do exactly that: replace it. I realise that various architectures will behave differently, so we should really be looking at numbers across several arches. Otherwise, where do we stop adding new ones? After we have 6 of these (which is after this one). After 12? After the 20th? -- 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
