Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: add fast lzo decompressor

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Robinson wrote:
>> Anyway, I assume it is maintainability rather than size you're concerned
>> about here?
> 
> Right, of course.
> 
>> OTOH, the safe version is far from useless.
>> I estimate (but haven't tested yet) that you would lose about 40 ms in
>> the Eee test case. That is, the boot-time savings are reduced from 123
>> to perhaps 85 ms which is still acceptable. It is certainly much less
>> complicated than the alternatives, so if that's what you would prefer I
>> can go that way.
> 
> I think if the cost is 40 ms once during boot on a slow platform, it's 
> worth unifying the two codebases.  I am *not* saying that I don't think 
> boot performance matters -- far be from it -- but I think this is 
> probably worth the reliability and maintainability advantages of having 
> a single piece of code if at all possible.
> 
> Of course, if you can figure out how to avoid that and still have the 
> code clean, then that's another matter.
> 
> [Cc: Arjan, fast boot evangelizer. ;)]

as long as LZO is optional.... and it's documented somewhere to not use
it if you want fast speed I'm totally fine.