Re: [GIT PULL] bzip2/lzma kernel compression

[Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alain Knaff wrote:
>> But now I am curious how this will evolve from here. I suppose it will
>> soon appear in one of the patch-2.6.28-gitxy.gz under
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots , and then in an
>> 2.6.29-rcx etc.
>> Or are there some more other steps involved in between?
>>
> 
> Well, Linus opted not to merge it for 2.6.29-rc1, which means it is dead
> for this merge cycle.

Too bad :(

For when is the next merge window scheduled (approximatively...)?

What impact does this have on procedure for supplying updates to it?
Indeed, I've got a couple of new features in the pipeline that I'd like
to add in the new future:
 - centralizing the switch of kernel compression in a common place (will
make it easier to add new compressions once all architectures support
the new scheme, without the need of touching all of them).
 - support for new LZMA variant with "real" magic numbers
 - support for "no kernel compression" option (people have asked me for
this for the case where they have a boot loader that already handles
decompression)

>  This gives us a couple of options, with the aim
> to get it merged into 2.6.30:
> 
> - We can continue to carry it in the -tip tree, which also means it will
>   be in the linux-next tree.
> - We can push it to Andrew Morton for the -mm tree.
> - Sam could take it in his kbuild tree.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of those? Personally,
I'd prefer a choice that:
 - allows the most lightweight procedure for updating it (i.e. allows to
supply incremental changes, rather than do a "full" release)
 - is most visible (so that when people ask me for it, I can for example
tell them "it's already in the -mm tree, download it from xxx". Oh, and
visibility will give it also more test exposure)

> Out of these, I think the kbuild tree is entirely inappropriate.  The
> selection of the other two is mostly a matter of testing, and which way
> will be easier to add the ARM code and other arch support.

Well ease of merging the ARM code in is obviously also a consideration
to take into account.

> 
> 	-hpa
> 

Regards,

Alain