On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 22:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'd say go with the cleanups. The code I've seen is going to be quite
> unmaintainable by any kernel developer.
>
> Any fixes which come from upstream can be trivially applied by taking the
> diffs against the version of upstream we starte
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:58:51PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 23:56 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > Yes there might still be problems - that is why I posted as RFC. I got
> > useful comments and the code is improving. Going for such fork might
> > be pain initially but IMHO
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:00:05 +0530 "Nitin Gupta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
err, my LZO atte
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
On Monday 04 June 2007 16:45:55 Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:37 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Yes - most of that work, IIRC, is related to the alignment issues that
> > Herr Oberhumer noted. As it stands, the alternative does work well for a
> > large number of the platforms
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 23:56 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Yes there might still be problems - that is why I posted as RFC. I got
> useful comments and the code is improving. Going for such fork might
> be pain initially but IMHO its worth it. My idea for this 'fork' is
> not just clean-ups but potent
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:37 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Yes - most of that work, IIRC, is related to the alignment issues that Herr
> Oberhumer noted. As it stands, the alternative does work well for a large
> number of the platforms that the kernel supports. With a little Kconfig magic
> it
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Hey Guys, please calm down :)
I now understand the memory alignment/other problems that author
pointed out and I am working on same - will post version 7 soon.
Thanks,
Nitin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mo
On 6/4/07, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 12:14 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> I have been involved in benchmarking and testing that stripped down and
> kernel-style version and cannot recall any mention of
On Monday 04 June 2007 12:52:55 Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 12:14 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I have been involved in benchmarking and testing that stripped down and
> > kernel-style version and cannot recall any ment
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 12:14 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> I have been involved in benchmarking and testing that stripped down and
> kernel-style version and cannot recall any mention of said alignment errors.
> Perhaps I was removed from t
On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> The following series contains several patches which I'm hoping could see
> some testing in -mm. They're all been seen before at some point. The LZO
> ones are important due to the dependent patches, the swap write failure
> ones have just fall
The following series contains several patches which I'm hoping could see
some testing in -mm. They're all been seen before at some point. The LZO
ones are important due to the dependent patches, the swap write failure
ones have just fallen off the radar.
LZO
===
We've seen a lot of activity in at
14 matches
Mail list logo
