> On Nov 10, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:01:41PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> You do consistently ask for a shim layer, but you haven???t explained what
>> we gain by diverging from the documented and tested API of the upstream zstd
>> project. It???s an important discussion given that we hope to regularly
>> update the kernel side as they make improvements in zstd.
> An API that looks like every other kernel API, and doesn't cause endless
> amount of churn because someone decided they need a new API flavor of
> the day. Btw, I'm not asking for a shim layer - that was the compromise
> we ended up with.
I will put up a version of the patch set with the shim layer. I will follow the
kernel style guide for the shim, which will involve function renaming. I will
prefix the functions with “zstd_” instead of “ZSTD_” to make it clear that
this is not the upstream zstd API, but rather a kernel wrapper (and be closer
to the style guide).
Other than renaming to follow the kernel style guide, I will keep the API as
similar as possible to the existing API, to minimize churn.
Please let me know if you have any particular requests for the shim that I
haven't mentioned, or if you would prefer something else. Alternatively,
comment on the patches once I put them up. Expect them later this week
> If zstd folks can't maintain a sane code base maybe we should just drop
> this childish churning code base from the tree.