On 5/14/21 10:32 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 3:02 AM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've included this version in the asm-generic tree for 5.14 already,
>> addressing the few issues that were pointed out in the RFC. If there
>> are any remaining problems, I hope those can be addressed as follow-up
> This continues to look great to me, and now has the even simpler
> remaining implementation.
> I'd be tempted to just pull it in for 5.13, but I guess we don't
> actually have any _outstanding_ bug in this area (the bug was in our
> zlib code, required -O3 to trigger, has been fixed now,
Wasn't the new zlib code slated for 5.14. I don't see it in your master yet
> and the biggy
> case didn't even use "get_unaligned()").
Indeed this series is sort of orthogonal to that bug, but IMO that bug
still exists in 5.13 for -O3 build, granted that is not enabled for !ARC.
> So I guess your 5.14 timing is the right thing to do.
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:52 AM Vineet Gupta
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Wasn't the new zlib code slated for 5.14. I don't see it in your master yet
You're right, I never actually committed it, since it was specific to
ARC and -O3 and I wasn't entirely happy with the amount of testing it
got (with Heiko pointing out that the s390 stuff needed more fixes for
So in fact it's not even queued up for 5.14 due to this all, I just dropped it.
> > and the biggy
> > case didn't even use "get_unaligned()").
> Indeed this series is sort of orthogonal to that bug, but IMO that bug
> still exists in 5.13 for -O3 build, granted that is not enabled for !ARC.
Right, the zlib bug is still there.
But Arnd's series wouldn't even fix it: right now inffast has its own
- ugly and slow - special 2-byte-only version of "get_unaligned()",
And because it's ugly and slow, it's not actually used for
Vineet - maybe the fix is to not take my patch to update to a newer
zlib, but to just fix inffast to use the proper get_unaligned(). Then
Arnd's series _would_ actually fix all this..