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 its worth it. My idea for this 'fork' is
> > not just clean-ups but potential optimizations that such cleanups
> > usually bring along. I do not think there will be major overhauls in
> > such mature de/compression implementations so I believe its okay to go
> > for such 'fork' for sake of cleaner and perhaps faster code.
>
> If you want to make cleaner and faster code, why not work on LZO
> upstream directly? I'm sure the LZO author would welcome the speedups,
> just as much as the kernel would.
Because it's author has shown his preference for crappy code. Can we
please stop this stupid 'upstream' term here? LZO is first and most
and algorithm. There is a really crappy reference implementation, but
we should not put that in but rather have a proper implementation targeted
at the linux kernel. Whether that implementation starts from scratch or
by gradually improving the existing reference implementation doesn't matter.
-
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]
