Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernel
Joe Perches <joe@...>
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 16:31 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 07:49:12AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:We disagree.On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:Sorry, a 66% increase in decompression speed over the updated LZO codeOn Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:40:34PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/145On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 22:10 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:Please read the comments against the previous posting of these patchesSo... for a selected kernel version of a particular size, can we pleaseHow could it be questionable that it's worth updating the LZO code?
I'm curious - what in your mind qualifies "significant value" ?faster boot time. smaller, faster overall code.
Maybe "significant value" is a patch which buggily involves convertingIf you mean commit 0cc41e4a21d43, perhaps you could clarify with an
example. I don't see any relevant changes by you in -next, but
maybe I'm not looking in the right spot.
The change did enable reducing code size.
You said:Why would the LZO code not be updated?I'm not saying that the LZO code should not be updated.
Sounded as if you were doubtful to me.so that we can see whether it's worth updating the LZO code
I'm saying thatCompletely agree.