> On Nov 10, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 or weekend. Best, Nick > If zstd folks can't maintain a sane code base maybe we should just drop > this childish churning code base from the tree.
