From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261661AbUCSDJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:09:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261931AbUCSDJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:09:50 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:57767 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261661AbUCSDJr (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:09:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:09:42 -0600 From: Matt Mackall To: J?rn Engel Cc: linux-kernel , discuss@x86-64.org, Tom Rini Subject: Re: [CFT] inflate.c rework arch testing needed Message-ID: <20040319030942.GM11010@waste.org> References: <20040318231006.GK11010@waste.org> <20040319003252.GB11450@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040319003252.GB11450@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:32:52AM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote: > On Thu, 18 March 2004 17:10:06 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > I've reworked the mess that is lib/inflate.c, including: > > > > - proper formatting > > - killing a ton of legacy code > > - cleaning up IO and CRC handling > > - eliminating all the global variables > > - using __init for the core kernel > > - proper linking rather than the #include "../lib/inflate.c" hack > > - lots of minor cleanups along the way > > > > This drops a ton of support code from all the users of this code as > > well: > > > > arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile | 5 > > arch/arm/boot/compressed/misc.c | 244 -- > > arch/i386/boot/compressed/Makefile | 6 > > arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c | 224 -- > > arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/Makefile | 6 > > arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.c | 212 -- > > include/linux/inflate.h | 9 > > init/do_mounts_rd.c | 129 - > > init/initramfs.c | 139 - > > lib/Makefile | 4 > > lib/inflate.c | 3047 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 11 files changed, 1688 insertions(+), 2337 deletions(-) > > I like the patch in general. This is definitely the wrong time for > it, but at least parts of it could go into 2.7 sometime. Well it's been sitting in -tiny for a while already and will stay there until someone else is ready for it. I may try to push it to -mm at some point. > Have you thought about updating to a more recent version of zlib? It > is most likely not worth it but I'd like to know for sure. The code for new versions of zlib is significantly scarier last I checked and there's no particular advantage to it. But one of the primary motivations here is to get to the point where something like bunzip2 or even a new zlib is a drop-in replacement. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting