Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:58:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:58:35 -0400 Received: from conn6m.toms.net ([64.32.246.219]:21740 "EHLO conn6m.toms.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:58:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:01:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Oehser To: Horst von Brand cc: Christian Ludwig , Linux Kernel Mailinglist Subject: Re: bzip2 support against 2.4.18 In-Reply-To: <200207152131.g6FLVveP031612@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> 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 Content-Length: 1054 Lines: 23 > Also, bzip2 is not used because it needs around 1MiB for buffers when > uncompressing, RAM which just isn't there when booting (it has to work in > the mythical PC 640KiB, IIRC). Or am I missing something here? The reason bzip2 has not been thought desirable is as much the slowerness as it is the biggerness, not something to do with the 640, after all, the difference betwixt zImage and bzImage already is that bzImage loads high. Note, it does not require "around 1MiB", it requires 350K if -1 -s is used, and 3700K if -9 is used. Reasonable use would be, say, 1600K for -6 -s, it could certainly make a kernel that would boot in 4MB into one that requires 8MB, but, in many situations, that just isn't an issue, for example, if you are going to be loading ramdisks, anyway, or an X server. -Tom - 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/