On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:01:37PM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2007, at 9:39 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:08:32PM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Call gunzip_partial to calculate the remaining length and copy the
> >> data to the user buffer. This makes it shorter and reduces
> >> duplication.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Milton Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Hrm... I guess this is sufficient. Since we'll shortly be blowing
> > away the state anyway, the lack of call to inflateEnd doesn't really
> > matter. Originally I was going to make this function call fatal() if
> > the destination didn't have enough space to contain the decompressed
> > tail of the image, but obviously I decided aginst that.
> >
> > But, if you're going to do this, you might as well get rid of
> > gunzip_finish() entirely, and have the callers using gunzip_partial
> > instead.
>
> Huh? I stilll call inflateEnd if s.workspace is not NULL, I just
> don't duplicate gunzip_partial in gunzip_finish. Calling inflateEnd
Oh, yes, oops. Missed the couple of lines there that didn't have a
'-' in front.
> will mean a future call would return an error in the compressed case
> instead of the behavior in the non-compressed case that changes with
> this patch from get same data again to get further data that may exist
> after the patch.
>
> Yes, one can argue that we don't need to call inflateEnd, but I didn't
> make that change in this patch.
>
> Or were you suggesting that we really don't need the finish function?
Well, we probably don't. But for the time being.
Acked-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
