Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: add fast lzo decompressor

[Arjan van de Ven]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Robinson wrote:
> > Anyway, I assume it is maintainability rather than size you're concerned
> > about here?
>
> Right, of course.
>
> > OTOH, the safe version is far from useless.
> > I estimate (but haven't tested yet) that you would lose about 40 ms in
> > the Eee test case. That is, the boot-time savings are reduced from 123
> > to perhaps 85 ms which is still acceptable. It is certainly much less
> > complicated than the alternatives, so if that's what you would prefer I
> > can go that way.
>
> I think if the cost is 40 ms once during boot on a slow platform, it's 
> worth unifying the two codebases.  I am *not* saying that I don't think 
> boot performance matters -- far be from it -- but I think this is 
> probably worth the reliability and maintainability advantages of having 
> a single piece of code if at all possible.
>
> Of course, if you can figure out how to avoid that and still have the 
> code clean, then that's another matter.
>
> [Cc: Arjan, fast boot evangelizer. ;)]

as long as LZO is optional.... and it's documented somewhere to not use
it if you want fast speed I'm totally fine.
--
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/