Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm

["Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@gmail.com>]

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 <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@openedhand.com> 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
>
>