| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:42:50 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Andreas Robinson <andr345@...il.com> CC: Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: add fast lzo decompressor 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. ;)] -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists