Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@openedhand.com>]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:37 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Yes - most of that work, IIRC, is related to the alignment issues that Herr 
> Oberhumer noted. As it stands, the alternative does work well for a large 
> number of the platforms that the kernel supports. With a little Kconfig magic 
> it could be made available *only* for those platforms that it currently 
> supports. Then people can help work on the alignment issues - possibly by 
> providing platform conditional code.

My patch was actually written with ARM machines in mind and has been
extremely well tested on it. A version which doesn't run on ARM is not
acceptable. Its also ironic that "platform conditional code" is what a
lot of that bloat you're so keen to remove is about.

> I'm not familiar with the zlib code, but it was included a long time ago - 
> since zlib was included I'm pretty certain that if it had been proposed today 
> it would have been NACK'd for the style violations and bloat.

Adrian's covered this. I also know how hard updating something like zlib
is (I was the last person to do it).

> You can take the time to produce a patch and spread FUD about the speed of a 
> competing patches code but you don't have the time to work on fixing a 
> cleaner implementation? I'll admit that actually working on fixing problems 
> in code can take more time, but still - the time taken for those pursuits 
> *could* have been spent actually working on fixing the problems.

I *have* spent some time on it.

My speed comments were actually pretty positive. Yes, I screwed up one
of the benchmarks (as have others proving its easily done) but I did
admit to it. My others were fair comment and some issues were addressed
as a result (but not all).

I'm going to stop here. I don't agree with the rest of your email and
you've a distorted view of whats been said.

Regards,

Richard