From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Squashfs: add LZ4 compression Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:00:53 -0500 Message-ID: <1374876053.3031.19@driftwood> References: <1374459663-15363-1-git-send-email-phillip@squashfs.org.uk> <51ECA17A.3060401@cn.fujitsu.com> <51ECCB8B.7030104@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51ECCB8B.7030104@cn.fujitsu.com> (from guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com on Mon Jul 22 01:04:59 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp="Yes"; format="Flowed" To: Gu Zheng Cc: Phillip Lougher , Phillip Lougher , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org On 07/22/2013 01:04:59 AM, Gu Zheng wrote: > On 07/22/2013 01:07 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote: > > > On 22 July 2013 04:05, Gu Zheng wrote: > >> Hi Phillip, > >> Have some tests been carried out to confirm that Squashfs > really > >> can get benefit from LZ4 compression, comparing with lzo? > > > > This seems to be a loaded question, in that it seems to be trying to > > reopen the "why add lz4 when we already have lzo" debate all over > > again. As LZ4 has been merged to mainline, this appears to be a > > question that has already been answered. > > No, they are different. LZ4 can be merged to mainline, because we can > see the benefit(faster compressing speed under the enabled unaligned > memory access) it brings to us comparing with lzo. > But it's hard to say that it also really can bring benefit to > Squashfs. A compression format was added to the kernel. Philip hooked up the code that was already in the kernel to a filesystem that was already in the kernel. You consider this action controversial... Rob