Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755473AbXE2F4B (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 01:56:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750950AbXE2Fzx (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 01:55:53 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:38024 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750888AbXE2Fzx (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 01:55:53 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Or9YhHCohGfaIiuWD4UIajcu7Q2H6hyII9dy3yOaL56qUKWJBzbcTqcrNhhXtZVZTvYloS/yetwN/Nbxfwx7V9wuZnM1CQzQpD5XxTRtp+VMRRGSc5tKl44b1gDhX+XwZBzneBt2ZGU3yKjYItiO/9fNYxDm7cI94HjriW+UJPo= Message-ID: <4cefeab80705282255j7757905aia7b45ea5eddf5f5f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:25:52 +0530 From: "Nitin Gupta" To: "Adrian Bunk" Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6 Cc: "Daniel Hazelton" , lkml , linux-mm-cc@laptop.org, linuxcompressed-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Andrew Morton" , "Richard Purdie" , "Bret Towe" , "Satyam Sharma" In-Reply-To: <20070528171115.GQ3899@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4cefeab80705280734i37df1742k6738cd4200813684@mail.gmail.com> <4cefeab80705280740l36c00bf8t4a6f5b426a7a380a@mail.gmail.com> <200705281049.48679.dhazelton@enter.net> <4cefeab80705280806m39fbcfd6v93a1c847c25e381c@mail.gmail.com> <20070528154346.GO3899@stusta.de> <4cefeab80705280903t6b2bb687g4eb1d9de2717f6ec@mail.gmail.com> <20070528171115.GQ3899@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1562 Lines: 40 On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote: > > On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I have not seen any explanations: > - Why did the upstream author write the code that way? > - Why are your changes correct? > - Why do your changes allow the compiler to produce faster code? > > The upstream author of the code is available - and he might be able to > help you getting answers. No matter whether your changes are incorrect > or correct optimizations that should go upstream, in both cases > discussing these issues with upstream is the best solution. The changelog I posted along with patch mentions all the changes I made. I thought we will find all problems with this changelog in hand and considering that its just ~500 LOC. But still, ok, asking author himself will be good if he replies. I will mail him detailed changelog and seek his feedback on this. This should answer all of your questions. > > And testing is nice, but if you broke some case that's outside of your > tests you'll never notice. > Yes. We cannot come up with exhaustive set of test cases to cover all cases. But assuming that _original_ version is right and taking the chagelog we should be able to verify if the porting is correct. - Nitin - 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/