From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:56712 "EHLO
	labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758646Ab3B0Bkl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:40:41 -0500
Message-ID: <1361929234.1924.8.camel@joe-AO722>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernel
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:40:34 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20130226221027.GW17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kbuild.vger.kernel.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>, "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@oberhumer.com>, Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@lge.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@gmail.com>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@openedhand.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Joe Millenbach <jmillenbach@gmail.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>, Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com>, Egon Alter <egon.alter@gmx.net>, hyojun.im@lge.com, chan.jeong@lge.com, raphael.andy.lee@gmail.com

On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 22:10 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> So... for a selected kernel version of a particular size, can we please
> have a comparison between the new LZO code and this LZ4 code, so that
> we can see whether it's worth updating the LZO code or replacing the
> LZO code with LZ4?

How could it be questionable that it's worth updating the LZO code?