On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 07:49:12AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. Sorry, a 66% increase in decompression speed over the updated LZO code isn't "significant value" ? I'm curious - what in your mind qualifies "significant value" ? Maybe "significant value" is a patch which buggily involves converting all those "<n>" printk format strings in assembly files to KERN_* macros, thereby breaking those strings because you've not paid attention to what .asciz means? (Yes, I've just cleaned that crap up after you...) > Why would the LZO code not be updated? I'm not saying that the LZO code should not be updated. I'm saying that the kernel boot time decompressor is not a play ground for an ever increasing number of "my favourite compression method" crap. We don't need four, five or even six compression methods there. We just need three - a "fast but large", "small but slow" and "all round popular medium". -- 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
