From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fsx: add missing fallocate flag ifdefs
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 08:25:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240927152537.GQ21877@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZvagFdWEcffZs06i@bfoster>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 08:07:49AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 01:42:31PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:55:21AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 07:50:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 10:41:47AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > The various fallocate flags are mostly ifdef'd for backward
> > > > > compatibility with the exception of the associated test_fallocate()
> > > > > calls to verify functionality at runtime. I suspect the reason for
> > > > > this was to avoid ifdef ugliness around having to clear the runtime
> > > > > flag for each operation, but unfortunately this defeats the purpose
> > > > > of the ifdef protection everywhere else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Factor out the fallocate related test calls into a new helper and
> > > > > add the appropriate ifdefs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > ltp/fsx.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/ltp/fsx.c b/ltp/fsx.c
> > > > > index 677f8c9f..417743c5 100644
> > > > > --- a/ltp/fsx.c
> > > > > +++ b/ltp/fsx.c
> > > > > @@ -2833,6 +2833,50 @@ __test_fallocate(int mode, const char *mode_str)
> > > > > #endif
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +void
> > > > > +test_fallocate_calls(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (fallocate_calls)
> > > > > + fallocate_calls = test_fallocate(0);
> > > > > + if (keep_size_calls)
> > > > > + keep_size_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE
> > > > > + if (unshare_range_calls)
> > > > > + unshare_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > + unshare_range_calls = 0;
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
> > > > > + if (punch_hole_calls)
> > > > > + punch_hole_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > + punch_hole_calls = 0;
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE
> > > > > + if (zero_range_calls)
> > > > > + zero_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > + zero_range_calls = 0;
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE
> > > > > + if (collapse_range_calls)
> > > > > + collapse_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > + collapse_range_calls = 0;
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > The concept looks fine, but collapse and zero range have been in the
> > > > kernel for a decade now, do we really need to have ifdef tests for them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably not.. but why even bother worrying about individual flags? The
> > > insert and unshare flags have been around for 9 and 8 years
> > > respectively, none of these were fully ifdef'd from the beginning, and
> > > I'm not aware of anyone that has actually complained.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced that this patch matters for anybody in practice. I
> > > included it just because it was simple enough to include the minimum
> > > mechanical fix and I was slightly curious if somebody could come up with
> > > a more elegant solution. In the spirit of being practical, maybe the
> > > better approach here is to just remove the (at least the falloc flag
> > > related) ifdefs entirely? We can always add them back if somebody
> > > complains...
> >
> > As this patch is still controversial, I'll merge the other one at first, to
> > catch up the release of this week. We can talk this one later, if you still
> > hope to have it :)
> >
>
> Thanks. In thinking more about it.. my reasoning above was that it seems
> like the value of these ifdefs is to avoid disruption when new
> functionality is introduced, but at the same time the fstests user base
> may not be necessarily all that interested in eternal backwards
> compatibility for ancient runtimes, etc. Therefore, I wonder if it's
> reasonable to have an (informal) expiration date for when we can clear
> out some of this cruft to keep the code cleaner and more maintainable
> going forward.
>
> So I largely agree with Darrick's point, it's just that personally I'm
> less interested in discussion over which fallocate flags to include or
> not because to my mind that suggests we might as well just drop the
> ifdefs entirely. That said, I'm not all that invested beyond just trying
> to be proactive since I happened to be hacking in this area, so if you
> guys want to leave things as is, or agree on a subset of flags to ifdef,
> just let me know and I'll drop it or send a v2.
Usually I just let Christoph complain and remove the ifdefs, but if I
have to use my own rule, it would be that ifdefs and ./configure
trickery isn't necessary for any symbol that is at least 5 years old.
Recent complaints on the mailing list have caused me to revise that to
10 years old though (see recent memfd_create fixes). :)
I also remember that a lot of the old crufty ifdef stuff (iirc) was kept
around so that fstests would continue to run on old RHELs. Once in a
while our QA folks rebase fstests to latest, but they also tend to patch
back in whatever ./configure magic they need for 2.6 era kernels.
--D
> Brian
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > > --D
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE
> > > > > + if (insert_range_calls)
> > > > > + insert_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > + insert_range_calls = 0;
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > bool
> > > > > keep_running(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > @@ -3271,20 +3315,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > > check_trunc_hack();
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (fallocate_calls)
> > > > > - fallocate_calls = test_fallocate(0);
> > > > > - if (keep_size_calls)
> > > > > - keep_size_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE);
> > > > > - if (unshare_range_calls)
> > > > > - unshare_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE);
> > > > > - if (punch_hole_calls)
> > > > > - punch_hole_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE);
> > > > > - if (zero_range_calls)
> > > > > - zero_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE);
> > > > > - if (collapse_range_calls)
> > > > > - collapse_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE);
> > > > > - if (insert_range_calls)
> > > > > - insert_range_calls = test_fallocate(FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE);
> > > > > + test_fallocate_calls();
> > > > > if (clone_range_calls)
> > > > > clone_range_calls = test_clone_range();
> > > > > if (dedupe_range_calls)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.46.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-27 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-26 14:41 [PATCH 0/2] fsx: support unshare range fallocate mode Brian Foster
2024-09-26 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Brian Foster
2024-09-26 14:48 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-09-26 15:53 ` Brian Foster
2024-09-27 3:40 ` Zorro Lang
2024-09-26 14:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] fsx: add missing fallocate flag ifdefs Brian Foster
2024-09-26 14:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-09-26 15:55 ` Brian Foster
2024-09-27 5:42 ` Zorro Lang
2024-09-27 12:07 ` Brian Foster
2024-09-27 15:25 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-09-27 18:34 ` Brian Foster
2024-09-28 8:03 ` Zorro Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240927152537.GQ21877@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zlang@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.