On 30.11.18 г. 17:22 ч., Chris Mason wrote: > On 29 Nov 2018, at 12:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > >> On 29.11.18 г. 18:43 ч., Jean Fobe wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> I've been studying LZ4 and other compression algorithms on the >>> kernel, and seen other projects such as zram and ubifs using the >>> crypto api. Is there a technical reason for not using the crypto api >>> for compression (and possibly for encryption) in btrfs? >>> I did not find any design/technical implementation choices in >>> btrfs development in the developer's FAQ on the wiki. If I completely >>> missed it, could someone point me in the right direction? >>> Lastly, if there is no technical reason for this, would it be >>> something interesting to have implemented? >> >> I personally think it would be better if btrfs' exploited the generic >> framework. And in fact when you look at zstd, btrfs does use the >> generic, low-level ZSTD routines but not the crypto library wrappers. >> If >> I were I'd try and convert zstd (since it's the most recently added >> algorithm) to using the crypto layer to see if there are any lurking >> problems. > > Back when I first added the zlib support, the zlib API was both easier > to use and a better fit for our async worker threads. That doesn't mean > we shouldn't switch, it's just how we got to step one ;) And what about zstd? WHy is it also using the low level api and not the crypto wrappers? > > -chris >
