Andrew, Andrian, If you really have the opinion of not going for major cleanups, optimizations outside of original LZO code (basically a fork), then there is no point in me continuing this work.
If you think otherwise, please let me know and I will post a newer version with improvements from all these feedback I got. Thanks, Nitin On 6/5/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote: > On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> The zlib code isn't kernel style and is arguably bloated, perhaps we >> should remove that? > > I don't know - I don't use zlib. > We can make LZO cleaner and perhaps faster. This will be good. >... "cleaner" = much harder to upgrade to new upstream LZO versions -> bad "perhaps faster" = different from the well-known original code and might again contain new bugs -> bad "perhaps faster" = if we fork LZO and actually get it faster, all the other LZO users will not benefit -> bad zlib and LZO are special because they are maintained userspace code imported into the kernel. > Regards, > Nitin cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/