On (26/10/10 02:54), Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> So entire qpace should go here, no? Why did you create this entire layer > >> of indirection, singleton management under drivers/soc? > > > > qpace seems to be standalone/independent arch/soc specific, and can gain > > users outside of zram (fs compression, zswap, etc.). zram's backends > > potentially can disappear all together, if we switch to acomp crypto API. > > Are there any plans for switching back to the acomp crypto API? We moved away > from it some time ago and dropped all the crypto dependency in favor of the > custom comp backends, right?
We moved from deprecated scomp API and switched to our own comp API. There is a possibility of switching to acomp API in the future.
