public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: J?rn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	discuss@x86-64.org, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [CFT] inflate.c rework arch testing needed
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:09:42 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040319030942.GM11010@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040319003252.GB11450@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:32:52AM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote:
> On Thu, 18 March 2004 17:10:06 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > 
> > I've reworked the mess that is lib/inflate.c, including:
> > 
> > - proper formatting
> > - killing a ton of legacy code
> > - cleaning up IO and CRC handling
> > - eliminating all the global variables
> > - using __init for the core kernel
> > - proper linking rather than the #include "../lib/inflate.c" hack
> > - lots of minor cleanups along the way
> > 
> > This drops a ton of support code from all the users of this code as
> > well:
> > 
> >  arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile    |    5
> >  arch/arm/boot/compressed/misc.c      |  244 --
> >  arch/i386/boot/compressed/Makefile   |    6
> >  arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c     |  224 --
> >  arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/Makefile |    6
> >  arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.c   |  212 --
> >  include/linux/inflate.h              |    9
> >  init/do_mounts_rd.c                  |  129 -
> >  init/initramfs.c                     |  139 -
> >  lib/Makefile                         |    4
> >  lib/inflate.c                        | 3047 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  11 files changed, 1688 insertions(+), 2337 deletions(-)
> 
> I like the patch in general.  This is definitely the wrong time for
> it, but at least parts of it could go into 2.7 sometime.

Well it's been sitting in -tiny for a while already and will stay
there until someone else is ready for it. I may try to push it to -mm
at some point.
 
> Have you thought about updating to a more recent version of zlib?  It
> is most likely not worth it but I'd like to know for sure.

The code for new versions of zlib is significantly scarier last I
checked and there's no particular advantage to it. But one of the
primary motivations here is to get to the point where something like
bunzip2 or even a new zlib is a drop-in replacement.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting

  reply	other threads:[~2004-03-19  3:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-18 23:10 [CFT] inflate.c rework arch testing needed Matt Mackall
2004-03-19  0:32 ` Jörn Engel
2004-03-19  3:09   ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2004-03-19  9:29     ` Jörn Engel
2004-03-28  7:00     ` [discuss] " Pavel Machek
2004-04-01 12:14       ` Jörn Engel
2004-03-19 10:31 ` Russell King
2004-03-19 17:16   ` Matt Mackall
2004-03-19 21:39     ` Russell King
2004-03-19 22:25       ` Matt Mackall

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040319030942.GM11010@waste.org \
    --to=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
    --cc=joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox