linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: zstd: add `zstd-fast` alias mount option for fast modes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f6b92c77-d702-465b-a36a-93c42ecf59a8@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:20:15 +0930
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
To: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>, dsterba@...e.cz
Cc: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
 Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
 Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: zstd: add `zstd-fast` alias mount option for fast
 modes



在 2025/4/14 16:23, Daniel Vacek 写道:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 at 16:31, Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I'd still opt for keeping full range and functionality including
>> negative levels using the plain `zstd:N` option and having the other
>> just as an additional alias (for maybe being a bit nicer to some
>> humans, but not a big deal really and a matter of preference).
>> Checking the official documentation, it still mentions "negative
>> compression levels" being the fast option.
>>
>> https://facebook.github.io/zstd/
>> https://facebook.github.io/zstd/zstd_manual.html
>>
>> The deprecation part looks like just some gossip. It looks more about
>> the cli tool api and we are defining a kernel mount api - perfectly
>> unrelated.
> 
> Any feedback, Dave? I tend to drop this ida of `zstd-fast` alias.

Not Dave here, but if the future of "zstd-fast" is not that clear, we 
can definitely wait for a while.

It's always safer to adapt when the terminology is mature enough.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
>>> We can make this change before 6.15 final so it's not in any released
>>> kernel and we don't have to deal with compatibility.