Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:51:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:51:12 -0400 Received: from stud.fbi.fh-darmstadt.de ([141.100.40.65]:688 "EHLO stud.fbi.fh-darmstadt.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:51:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:48:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan-Marek Glogowski To: Matt Domsch cc: Subject: Re: crc32 cleanups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I think this summarizes the problems with the crc code 1. Should the crc code be included in the kernel generally ? 2. If not - should the user or the driver modules change the behaviour of the kernel build process ? 3. How do we provide crc functions for modules not included in the main kernel tree ? 4. Should we use precompiled tables (bigger kernel) or use more compex (slower) algorithms ? I think the code should generally be included in the kernel - we can add somewhere an option like "Remove crc code from kernel if not used" marked as "dangerous". So the user can force removal if he is sure, he will never use the code. The drivers included in the kernel may still enable the code, if needed, but extern drivers won't work. To safe space or gain performance we should add a select option next to the "remove crc" one ("Optimize crc code for space/performance") Comments Jan-Marek Glogowski - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/