From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KW8av-00044F-80 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:44:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] AXFS: axfs_uncompress.c From: Artem Bityutskiy To: jaredeh@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <48AD0126.1050609@gmail.com> References: <48AD0126.1050609@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:40:38 +0300 Message-Id: <1219318838.18027.68.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cotte@de.ibm.com, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , tim.bird@AM.SONY.COM Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 fighting for faster system boot-up. So you might consider supporting LZO as well. --=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)