From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] AXFS: axfs_uncompress.c Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:40:38 +0300 Message-ID: <1219318838.18027.68.camel@sauron> References: <48AD0126.1050609@gmail.com> Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48AD0126.1050609@gmail.com> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: jaredeh@gmail.com Cc: Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , tim.bird@AM.SONY.COM, cotte@de.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 22:46 -0700, Jared Hulbert wrote: > + err =3D zlib_inflateReset(&stream); > + if (err !=3D Z_OK) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "zlib_inflateReset error %d\n", err); > + zlib_inflateEnd(&stream); > + zlib_inflateInit(&stream); > + } Jared, just FYI, are you aware that LZO which is also present in the kernel is much faster on decompress than zlib, while its compression is only slightly worse? I do not remember the digits, but last time I tested UBIFS, LZO decompression was about 3 times faster than zlib on OMAP3. This depends on architecture, etc of course. This may matter a lot if one is fightin= g for faster system boot-up. So you might consider supporting LZO as well= =2E --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)