> On Apr 8, 2021, at 8:09 PM, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:20 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Quite a few other functions are declared in a header, but I don't see
>> any existing callers in tree. I wonder if the maintainer could
>> consider cleaning these up so that we don't retain them in binaries
>> without dead code elimination enabled, or if there's a need to keep
>> this code in line with an external upstream codebase?
>
> Yeah, the equivalent cleanup was done upstream by Nick in 2018 [1],
> but there has been no major update to lib/zstd since 2017.
>
> Thus a cleanup would actually make it closer to upstream, which is the
> best case scenario :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <oj...@kernel.org>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/commit/f2d6db45cd28457fa08467416e8535985f062859
This looks good to me as well. I have a patchset up to use upstream zstd
directly in the kernel [0].
That will allow us to keep zstd up to date. And after that lands, I hope to set
up a zstd linux tree
to make merging patches into lib/zstd easier, since over the years quite a few
have been ignored.
[0] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2532407.html
Best,
Nick Terrell
> Cheers,
> Miguel
