Re: [PATCH 01/20] udev-cache: Compress the cache

[Ben Shelton <ben.shelton@ni.com>]

On 08/04, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 14-08-04 13:40:53, Ben Shelton wrote:
> > From: Richard Tollerton <rich.tollerton@ni.com>
> > 
> > $DEVCACHE is observed to be 100k uncompressed; compressing it reduces
> > its size to ~5k.
> > 
> > Natinst-Rally-ID: TA44427
> > Acked-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
> > Natinst-ReviewBoard-ID: 58620
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Tollerton <rich.tollerton@ni.com>
> > ---
> >  meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/init               | 2 +-
> >  meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/udev-cache         | 2 +-
> >  meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/udev-cache.default | 2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/init b/meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/init
> > index f2c84d5..1e69861 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/init
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/udev/udev/init
> > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ case "$1" in
> >  		    readfiles /etc/udev/cache.data
> >  		    OLDDATA="$READDATA"
> >  		    if [ "$OLDDATA" = "$NEWDATA" ]; then
> > -                            (cd /; tar xf $DEVCACHE > /dev/null 2>&1)
> > +                            (cd /; tar xzf $DEVCACHE > /dev/null 2>&1)
> 
> wouldnt cf still handle gz and xz or any other compression ?

Do you mean xf?  If so, then yes, I think it would.

What would be the advantage of doing it that way?  Just one fewer
change?

Thanks,
Ben