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

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

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. ;)]

	-hpa