On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:40:34PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 22:10 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > So... for a selected kernel version of a particular size, can we please > > > have a comparison between the new LZO code and this LZ4 code, so that > > > we can see whether it's worth updating the LZO code or replacing the > > > LZO code with LZ4? > > > > How could it be questionable that it's worth updating the LZO code? > > Please read the comments against the previous posting of these patches > where I first stated this argument - and with agreement from those > following the thread. The thread started on 26 Jan 2013. Thanks. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/145 I did not and do not see significant value in adding LZ4 given Markus' LZO improvements. I asked about LZO. Why would the LZO code not be updated? The new LZO code is faster than ever and it's a standalone improvement. Markus has posted what seems a clean git pull request. It was not cc'd to arm or linux-arch. http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/GIT-PULL-Update-LZO-compression-code-for-v3-9-td605184.html -- 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
