From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0088823D28C; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 03:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785208944; cv=none; b=HpQhcS3ebsv7m7dHlkZcEeOg27190icpadEhU0jk3Oa6RpigxpnL7m8RsAYjlV+fpvDSaqibmSoSg8grL0yb0PPHNHDOWbK+THjGQXmpnrDLDOAjxueZryRUZW6lVY0vhI6uzFAMuAx+cDlaYP1PImEJhs0n0CxYq7ZEc6cZH48= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785208944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8eVcv6n7DO2h6bwyj5yGT9DgVFVPFeeCoIODUS3aHro=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XwJxs0BSyCogMZ9SyOmwgkQIjs7aspXi5cZtfDZHSTcVZ6VtUkuzhBv2lhccNaYapD/7QEnPxSKEovLtECdANylOXBXPtnizYryv7ednueER1IP0eQ7tzLbHUSQwJ0KNrLFohMNLJu2ErFHCamxbn/SLbjU3Dv77a0NECBGOkzU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=1YbDWw5V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="1YbDWw5V" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=3kVGQnXuQLJuTOpQvL3JEDPWkiCKiFoO3UPdMvD6PiY=; b=1YbDWw5VuUjaqTGHjt3UKnOMZ/ wkY99z3NT3JKR2EEARByCZZnu6qWRiiWnUk0JttlZOR0U9x1TnNGxHbro5eCKFsWP8ell5WxOwEjF LemAocBs7AioWHZIgovaIt0CqBfW4ICtgcYikLGHEQU3cNAaMCMs3VsANV8GNw7LceJRCAIDr9LYR 2YS1KcQhFrYPRCuVbn2VkpvGMv6ulDHM4MwoNI2JE8B8HLYdBv8InEFLGyTwV7Ny2PJX7Fu9bRM6O 6Qu5yAS5jo5NwyAY6w17BmmKgCeMBSiubSMas2/i1EW0IpGoD6caJM0DWfo3GTS4qRbEkClj7Nw5E zkfvCvFA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1woYOb-00000004K9C-20Ow; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 03:22:21 +0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:22:21 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Zorro Lang , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] generic/746: skip on zoned btrfs Message-ID: References: <20260720111849.1659111-1-johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> <20260720111849.1659111-4-johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:00:35AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:37:38AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 01:18:47PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > The test relies on loop device discards punching holes in the backing > > > image file (holes are then detected via fiemap on the backing file). > > > Zoned btrfs does not support fallocate/punch hole, so fstrim on the > > > loop device cannot free space in the backing file and the test cannot > > > work. > > > > > > Skip the test on zoned devices, but only for btrfs so that other > > > filesystems (e.g. zoned XFS/f2fs) can still run it. > > > > This should use feature detection and not hard code file systems. > > I didn't find anything for that. Only using _require_xfs_io_command > "fpunch", but the test is not using ot so it felt wrong. We use _require_xfs_io_command as a shothand for feature detection in various places, so this should be ok. > It is not the zoned device model that prevents us but a desciccion we > did in zoned BTRFS when doing the initial support for it. I can look > into hole punching but I got a lot of other more urgent fires to put out > and features people are waiting for first. Yeah, tat should be fine. It just did sound like a rather odd limitation.