Hello, > Yes, I think we should. Unfortunately, we have made significant > modifications in the library to accommodate our kernel modules with > other compression protocols.
If your changes are of general interest, it would be great if you could provide me some patches for anyone to get your improvements. > I think we are going to look at your > fixes and incorporate them, instead of upgrading the entire library. > On another note, your fix to allow multiple options list structs, > with rasing the wlsb_width parameter significantly reduce our > errors. Great to know! :) > By the way, how high can wlsb_width be set to, and what is > the tradeoff with a high wlsb_width value? The W-LSB value must be a power of 2. There is no maximum except that the rohc_comp_set_wlsb_window_width() function uses size_t for the W-LSB width, so you cannot use a value that will overflow size_t on your platform. The advantage of a high W-LSB value is an increased robustness. The drawback is a lower compression efficiency. The best trade-off depends on your network quality and the traffic that you compress. Regards, Didier
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~rohc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~rohc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
