Re: [PATCH] Compress kernel modules on installation.

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2008-12-26 23:57, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>>
>>>Steve said [in Feb 2008] he wanted to try to make the solution
>>>more scalable so I am awaiting a new patch.
>> 
>>Hm, all I needed was this patch. It might fire up some people,
>>but it's got all the scalability I could think of..
>
>Jan - there is obviously no way I could apply this patch
>so late in the cycle. 

2.6.29 just started, did not it. Even if not, just queue it for
the next.

>The original patch that made this a CONFIG option is
>then much better as we avoid forcing new and untested
>behaviour on the users.
>
>We all know that compressing the modules are simple.
>And unless someone comes up with *very* good arguments
>then we should just use gzip with default parameters.

Besides the -9 flag, where would there be nondefault
parameters?

>If we go for the "keep the .ko extension but compress"
>then someone needs to answer the obvious questions:
>
>- will this break on a typical distribution

No; module-init-tools already uses gzopen even on
uncompressed files.

>- will this break busybox users

I did not see any gzip support in there, so the
answer is likely "yes, as usual".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/