On Tuesday 22 June 2010, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: > I am currently +0 on wether to use the patch above or my original > proposal. Both have its pros and cons (Saving more CPU vs. be more > picky about caching and implement an RFC SHOULD).
I have now commited your original patch because it is less likely to break something. If the CPU usage for compressing the first buffer turns out to be a problem, we can still change it later. Cheers, Stefan
