Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:18:48 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: lulf@pvv.ntnu.no Cc: ray@dlink.ua, geom@freebsd.org, embedded@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GEOM_ULZMA Message-ID: <20100304.081848.200754750200144876.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20100304102158.GA8092@nobby.geeknest.org> References: <20100219163644.da89e882.ray@dlink.ua> <20100304102158.GA8092@nobby.geeknest.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20100304102158.GA8092@nobby.geeknest.org>
Ulf Lilleengen <lulf@pvv.ntnu.no> writes:
: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:36:44PM +0200, Alexandr Rybalko wrote:
: > Hi,
: > I wrote a module GEOM_ULZMA (such as GEOM_UZIP, but compression with lzma), in connection with this is an issue best left lzma
: > code in the file "geom_ulzma.c" or store lzma library separately. If separately, then where better?
: >
: > Maybe in future make lzma and gzip library kernel interface for embedded?
: > Then in one instance of code, userland can use compression via kernel.
: >
:
: What are the cons against combining uzip/ulzma into a geom_z/geom_compress
: module that can support different compression schemes? I think this makes
: more sense than having different geom modules for each compression scheme.
Pros are it is easier to configure. Cons are it uses more memory and
the code fights against the normal layering and abstraction by
implementing things in two forks.
Which one wins should likely be decided on size since this is for an
embedded environment.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100304.081848.200754750200144876.imp>