On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:20:52AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
It???s not completely clear what you???re asking for here. If the
API
matches what???s in zstd-1.4.6, that seems like a reasonable way to
label
it. That???s what the upstream is for this code.
I???m also not sure why we???re taking extra time to shit on the zstd
userspace package. Can we please be constructive or at least
actionable?
Because it really doesn't matter that these crappy APIs he is
introducing match anything, especially not something done as horribly
as the zstd API. We'll need to do this properly, and claiming
compliance to some version of this lousy API is completely irrelevant
for the kernel.
If the underlying goal is to closely follow the upstream of another
project, we’re much better off using those APIs as provided.
Otherwise we just end up with drift and kernel-specific bugs that are
harder to debug. To the extent those APIs make us contort the kernel
code, I’m sure Nick is interested in improving things in both places.
There are probably 1000 constructive ways to have that conversation.
Please choose one of those instead of being an asshole.
-chris
