Please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the loop. On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 07:09:29PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > > Actually, for JFFS2 we need to leave the uncompressable data > uncompressed. So if the pcompress interface have only been for JFFS2, > I'd just return an error rather then expand data. Is such behavior > acceptable for common Linux's parts pike CryptoAPI ?
You mean you no longer need pcompress and we can get rid of it? That's fine by me. > And more, frankly, I don't like the "independent" partial compression > approach in JFFS2 and in JFFS3 (if it will ever happen) I'd make these > pieces dependent. For this purpose we'd need some deflate-like CryptoAPI > interface. I'm not going to implement it at the moment, I'm just curious > - what do you guys think about a generalized deflate-like CryptoAPI > compression interface? Well if you can show me what such an interface looks like then we can discuss it. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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/
