On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 15:18 -0400, Nick Terrell wrote: > The zstd version in the kernel works fine. But, you can see that the > version > that got imported stagnated where upstream had 14 released versions. > I > don't think it makes sense to have kernel developers maintain their > own copy > of zstd. Their time would be better spent working on the rest of the > kernel. > Using upstream directly lets the kernel profit from the work that we, > the zstd > developers, are doing. And it still allows kernel developers to fix > bugs if any > show up, and we can back-port them to upstream. I can't argue with that. > One possibility is to have a kernel wrapper on top of the zstd API to > make it > more ergonomic. I personally don’t really see the value in it, since > it adds > another layer of indirection between zstd and the caller, but it > could be done. Zstd would not be the first part of the kernel to come from somewhere else, and have wrappers when it gets integrated into the kernel. There certainly is precedence there. It would be interesting to know what Christoph's preference is. -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
