Re: initramfs optimization suggestions

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 5:25 pm

Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:

It already is optional.  If you don't want to compress it, don't.

Perhaps what you are referring to is the initramfs that is optionally 
built out of the kernel tree?

You are (correctly) pointing out that if the image is already 
compressed, it doesn't gain from additional compression, but that would 
increase the operational memory footprint during expansion.


The current code has a lot of advantages in terms of code complexity, 
however.  Your proposal would come with a dramatic increase in complexity.

	-hpa

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
initramfs optimization suggestions, Frans Meulenbroeks, (Tue Aug 5, 12:42 am)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, Matthias Kaehlcke, (Tue Aug 5, 1:39 am)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Aug 6, 5:25 pm)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, Frans Meulenbroeks, (Thu Aug 7, 12:11 am)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, H. Peter Anvin, (Thu Aug 7, 10:28 am)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, Frans Meulenbroeks, (Thu Aug 7, 11:53 pm)
Re: initramfs optimization suggestions, Frans Meulenbroeks, (Fri Aug 8, 3:06 am)