Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932106AbXFEFaU (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:30:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754315AbXFEFaI (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:30:08 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.240]:59966 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753993AbXFEFaG (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:30:06 -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=NMWEP2rNVdJbFHJgBz1dqifEVtL7xHBbRr5Kvr7Dudoo7ohpbtDoYE4rOYW+3wfY0KocZ2D2xvMdq1bexR6jOiWLgYvMpgcyq4w8m79Xlo4EFRYO6Tp5HAtVo0LiEkZxhgzoeAVSRbo3I0VogAqpeuZsBNe0eZ5PM8cQ0b61oQ4= Message-ID: <4cefeab80706042230u1fc7f485j30cea371d1d3117a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:00:05 +0530 From: "Nitin Gupta" To: "Adrian Bunk" , "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm Cc: "Richard Purdie" , "Daniel Hazelton" , LKML , "Hugh Dickins" , "Nick Piggin" , "David Woodhouse" In-Reply-To: <20070604200606.GA5500@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1180971378.6313.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200706041214.38017.dhazelton@enter.net> <1180975976.6313.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4cefeab80706041126y5f12402cl61b72ec101dd7915@mail.gmail.com> <20070604200606.GA5500@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1719 Lines: 56 Andrew, Andrian, If you really have the opinion of not going for major cleanups, optimizations outside of original LZO code (basically a fork), then there is no point in me continuing this work. If you think otherwise, please let me know and I will post a newer version with improvements from all these feedback I got. Thanks, Nitin On 6/5/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote: > > On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie wrote: > >... > >> The zlib code isn't kernel style and is arguably bloated, perhaps we > >> should remove that? > > > > I don't know - I don't use zlib. > > We can make LZO cleaner and perhaps faster. This will be good. > >... > > "cleaner" = much harder to upgrade to new upstream LZO versions -> bad > > "perhaps faster" = different from the well-known original code and > might again contain new bugs -> bad > > "perhaps faster" = if we fork LZO and actually get it faster, all the > other LZO users will not benefit -> bad > > > zlib and LZO are special because they are maintained userspace code > imported into the kernel. > > > > Regards, > > Nitin > > cu > Adrian > > -- > > "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out > of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. > "Only a promise," Lao Er said. > Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed > > - 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/