On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 03:46:36PM +0200, Alexandr Rybalko wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:02:32 +0100 > Ivan Voras <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 20/01/2011 16:51, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> > Well, creating a generic geom_compress module shouldn't increase the > >> > size by all that much. It's just a few function pointers that point at > >> > the decompression class. The rest of the format is the same, right? > >> > (ie, how it's broken into chunks, the chunks are separately > >> > compressed, etc.) > >> > >> I think they are talking about the size of the kernel :) > > Exact match :) > > But really, gzip in most cases already compiled into kernel (my not) and > anyway have small footprint. > > So I done join GEOM_UZIP + GEOM_ULZMA module, called GEOM_ULZMA yet. > > Module name open for discussion :) > Since they must have short and understandable name. > Maybe GEOM_COMPR, > maybe full GEOM_COMPRESSION, > maybe GEOM_REDUCE, > etc.
What's wrong with GEOM_COMPRESS? We already have equally long or longer
class names:
GEOM_LINUX_LVM
GEOM_MOUNTVER
GEOM_MULTIPATH
GEOM_SUNLABEL
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com
[email protected] http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgp3PAwBBaeia.pgp
Description: PGP signature
