[patch] size optimization for mkswap.c

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 16 March 2006 9:02 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

> Still experimenting with this and the needed follow-up bits.
>
> We will no longer give useful information *why* we refuse to creat a
> non-conforming area, iff we go down that path. Initially, i intended to
> keep the UI differences as few as possible, but if we drop v0 support
> for busybox-1.2 all at once, i tend to agree that we can favour size
> over usability as far as error checking is concerned there.
>
> i.e.: From now on, there will be *no* verbose error if the user requests
> -) to create a device with less than 10k size
> -) to create a device bigger than the available total size

The common case is "mkswap device" or "mkswap file".  Specifying the size 
isn't often done (no point), so I'm not too worried about the error message 
for that being bad.

> -) thus we can as well drop -force support except for sparc.
>
> Although i don't use it, i think that we may want keep the support for
> sparc et al, as it does not pessimize e.g. the x86 code, so it's of no
> benefit to cripple the implementation.

I have no idea what the issue with sparc is.

> One point eventually worth a hint is whether we should support
> swap-areas with HOST_WIDE_INT (or however it's called ) or not.

What's the issue here?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.