Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763154AbXFEGPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 02:15:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756714AbXFEGPf (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 02:15:35 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:35185 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755121AbXFEGPf (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 02:15:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:15:22 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Richard Purdie Cc: Nitin Gupta , Daniel Hazelton , akpm , LKML , Hugh Dickins , Nick Piggin , David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm Message-ID: <20070605061522.GB25760@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Richard Purdie , Nitin Gupta , Daniel Hazelton , akpm , LKML , Hugh Dickins , Nick Piggin , David Woodhouse References: <1180971378.6313.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200706041214.38017.dhazelton@enter.net> <1180975976.6313.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4cefeab80706041126y5f12402cl61b72ec101dd7915@mail.gmail.com> <1180990731.6313.179.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1180990731.6313.179.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 26 On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:58:51PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 23:56 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote: > > Yes there might still be problems - that is why I posted as RFC. I got > > useful comments and the code is improving. Going for such fork might > > be pain initially but IMHO its worth it. My idea for this 'fork' is > > not just clean-ups but potential optimizations that such cleanups > > usually bring along. I do not think there will be major overhauls in > > such mature de/compression implementations so I believe its okay to go > > for such 'fork' for sake of cleaner and perhaps faster code. > > If you want to make cleaner and faster code, why not work on LZO > upstream directly? I'm sure the LZO author would welcome the speedups, > just as much as the kernel would. Because it's author has shown his preference for crappy code. Can we please stop this stupid 'upstream' term here? LZO is first and most and algorithm. There is a really crappy reference implementation, but we should not put that in but rather have a proper implementation targeted at the linux kernel. Whether that implementation starts from scratch or by gradually improving the existing reference implementation doesn't matter. - 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/