[OpenAFS-devel] Patches for Openafs compression support

[Harald Barth]

+//return 0 on success, (-1) on fail

This is C++ style / C99. I know, there is other C99 stuff sneaking
into the code - I have submitted patches to add -qlanglvl=stdc99 for
the xlc (VAC) compiler, but I think we should keep the C99 stuff for
places where it is adding functionality. Just /* ... */, ok?

+#define        VOLRESTORE_Z            65535
+#define        VOLFORWARD_Z            65534
+#define        VOLDUMP_Z               65533
+#define        VOLFORWARDMULTIPLE_Z    65532
...
+proc RestoreZ(
+  IN afs_int32 toTrans,
+  IN afs_int32 flags,
+  IN struct restoreCookie *cookie,
+  IN afs_int32 compress,
+  IN afs_int32 level
+) split = VOLRESTORE_Z;

Do we want to implement compression as seperate calls for every thing
that we want to compress or should we be able to switch it on/off
like encryption?

Remind me: Did we write something down on how to agree on new calls?

+/* Start a dump and send it to multiple places simultaneously.
+ * If this returns an error (eg, return ENOENT), it means that
+ * none of the releases worked.  If this returns 0, that means
+ * that one or more of the releases worked, and the caller has
+ * to examine the results array to see which one(s).
+ * This will only do EITHER incremental or full, not both, so it's
+ * the caller's responsibility to be sure that all the destinations
+ * need just an incremental (and from the same time), if that's
+ * what we're doing.
+ */

This may be good but not "compression" ;-)

There is a lot of func(...., compress, level). Is it possible to write
this a bit differently so we don't need to drag around two additional
arguments everywere? 

+int *compress;
...
+               *compress = (0==1);

This is Pascal style. C does not have a boolean type, so it is not
necessary to construct a FALSE.

Harald.