On 11/3/20 1:05 AM, Nick Terrell wrote:
From: Nick Terrell
Move away from the compatibility wrapper to the zstd-1.4.6 API. This
code is functionally equivalent.
Signed-off-by: Nick Terrell
---
fs/btrfs/zstd.c | 48
1 file changed, 28 inserti
On 11/3/20 1:05 AM, Nick Terrell wrote:
From: Nick Terrell
Please pull from
g...@github.com:terrelln/linux.git tags/v5-zstd-1.4.6
to get these changes. Alternatively the patchset is included.
Where did we come down on the code formatting question? Personally I'm of the
mind that as lo
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:53:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> +#if defined(__KERNEL__)
> +struct compat_f2fs_gc_range {
> + u32 sync;
> + compat_u64 start;
> + compat_u64 len;
> +};
There's no need to use '#if defined(__KERNEL__)' in kernel source files.
Likewise for compat_f2fs_move_ran
> On Nov 6, 2020, at 9:10 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On 11/3/20 1:05 AM, Nick Terrell wrote:
>> From: Nick Terrell
>> Move away from the compatibility wrapper to the zstd-1.4.6 API. This
>> code is functionally equivalent.
>> Signed-off-by: Nick Terrell
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/zstd.c | 48 +++
You just keep resedning this crap, don't you? Haven't you been told
multiple times to provide a proper kernel API by now?
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:05:27PM -0800, Nick Terrell wrote:
> From: Nick Terrell
>
> Adds zstd_compat.h which provides the necessary functions from the
> current zstd.h AP
> On Nov 6, 2020, at 9:15 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On 11/3/20 1:05 AM, Nick Terrell wrote:
>> From: Nick Terrell
>> Please pull from
>> g...@github.com:terrelln/linux.git tags/v5-zstd-1.4.6
>> to get these changes. Alternatively the patchset is included.
>
> Where did we come down on the co
On 11/03, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/3 10:02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2020/11/3 0:31, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 11/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > This patch supports to store chksum value with compressed
> > > > data, and verify the integrality of compressed data while
> > > > reading the data.
> > >
On 11/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/6 8:05, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > This patch is marked 2/2, but it seems you sent it out on its own. Patch
> > series
> > are supposed to be resend in full; otherwise people can see just one patch
> > and
> > have no context.
>
> That's a historical problem,
