Please keep [email protected] in the loop.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 07:09:29PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
>
> Actually, for JFFS2 we need to leave the uncompressable data
> uncompressed. So if the pcompress interface have only been for JFFS2,
> I'd just return an error rather then expand data. Is such behavior
> acceptable for common Linux's parts pike CryptoAPI ?
You mean you no longer need pcompress and we can get rid of it?
That's fine by me.
> And more, frankly, I don't like the "independent" partial compression
> approach in JFFS2 and in JFFS3 (if it will ever happen) I'd make these
> pieces dependent. For this purpose we'd need some deflate-like CryptoAPI
> interface. I'm not going to implement it at the moment, I'm just curious
> - what do you guys think about a generalized deflate-like CryptoAPI
> compression interface?
Well if you can show me what such an interface looks like then we can
discuss it.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
