On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:51:20PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:00 PM, NoiseEHC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > I have a partially finished ZLIB decompression code as well. mstone >> > just >> > told me that time that we will use LZO so that effort was moot... >> > Currently I cannot decide if I should cry or just laugh >> > hysterically... :) > > I believe I made statements a few months ago about what compression we > presently _do_ use, but I don't think I commented on what compression we > ought to be using. Can you remind me of my words?
And, for the record, I didn't say "we'll be using zlib instead" -- in reality, we are trying to move off jffs2 just as quickly as possible, and the compression scheme we use "next" will be heavily influenced by whatever the "other filesystem" has adopted. But it is a fact that we are currently using zlib and rtime compression in jffs2, and OFW doesn't currently support lzo compression, so that adoption of LZO in jffs2 would have to wait until partition support -- which is also roughly the time when I hope to replace the non-boot partitions with something better than jffs2. So the window for LZO-related jffs2 improvements is very narrow. If logfs/ubifs/yaffs can benefit from your LZO work, then you've multiplied its potential usefulness -- and a quick google shows discussions of LZO in ubifs. Besides, improving LZO in the kernel improves things for everyone, not just OLPC, so if it's your itch, go scratch it! --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
