From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nico@fluxnic.net (Nicolas Pitre)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:08:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernel
In-Reply-To: <1361980152.2035.13.camel@joe-AO722>
References: <1361859870-15751-1-git-send-email-kyungsik.lee@lge.com>
 <512D1C12.4080109@oberhumer.com>
 <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302261557220.1254@syhkavp.arg>
 <87fw0i7n6d.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk>
 <20130226221027.GW17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1361929234.1924.8.camel@joe-AO722>
 <20130227095609.GY17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1361980152.2035.13.camel@joe-AO722>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302271055430.1254@syhkavp.arg>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Joe Perches wrote:

> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/145

Connecting to lkml.org (lkml.org)|87.253.128.182|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 500 Server Error

> I did not and do not see significant value in
> adding LZ4 given Markus' LZO improvements.

Please someone post a comprehensive comparison with all the results in 
the same email.

> The new LZO code is faster than ever and it's
> a standalone improvement.
> 
> Why would the LZO code not be updated?

It is used by filesystems, etc.  So of course it needs to be updated to 
faster code.

> Markus has posted what seems a clean git pull
> request.  It was not cc'd to arm or linux-arch.
> 
> http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/GIT-PULL-Update-LZO-compression-code-for-v3-9-td605184.html

Maybe a reminder should be sent to Linus about this.

>>From the above we can see this:

   **LZO-2013-UA : updated LZO version available in linux-next plus 
   experimental ARM Unaligned Access patch. This needs approval from 
   some ARM maintainer ist NOT YET INCLUDED.

What is that experimental patch in need of approval?


Nicolas