Hi.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:16AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Po 20-02-06 10:43:00, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> > Linux has a whole crypto API in the kernel, so why is it a problem
> > to have LZF there too?
>
> Because it is not needed there?
Hmmm, I think it makes totally sense there. While it is useful in the
suspend case, it would also be useful to the current implementation that
use the crypto API. Think about creating a compressed volume with
cryptoloop of dm-crypt.
> > About the progress bar: this is already implemented in userspace,
> > the kernel just forwards the progress via netlink to it. Not
> > necessarily ugly I think.
>
> Look at the code.
OK, could you point me to the ugly thinks. I see message passing between
the userspace application and the kernel, for which I think that netlink
is a good choice.
What has to be done to make the code not ugly? Is there a way to fix it
to become acceptable?
Regards,
Matthias
-
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]
