From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AEFC43217 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2CE5B6B0078; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 257C26B007B; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:48:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0F87C6B007D; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:48:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0056.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.56]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07AC6B0078 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A762E18085CF0 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:48:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78941176230.03.732D445 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C061C003E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:48:49 +0000 (UTC) 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=5sNRK7eak2tna64oFZaxQtUv30cBHlHdDha2g9J+6XE=; b=akbQMUgNdDQpa6emCnYiLroiEO NeCw+yt7z3/+UEQkkBfJzEeHH7rdyG1KvDLCKRWx8ZvLeUC0c5nDFYIjv4kTuzVKEel8CQ6GBWrDJ KpURrzLBLdCu4PadpP1ERk4QRCRw5NqcXDl9u7UqVLUWrU/m8OImS8wPLX5BZS3PVyd/rAVZVdcGl gX0/puxTRQIlGYW1Ox8MqXhnB8DIpppqF0mkAL/twThymucKliTaimCUiDZeBkXi/ib/tsr8+Arvr YVo8s4at+wsufH7ureeF4wOD9LkgK32HMDfOzcFu5KPMUO+ZK/sYu+mUE3nzTr51qJekCsZ/GWfTK z9n/L31A==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mzapF-005yRg-Se; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:48:49 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:48:49 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: NeilBrown Cc: Anna Schumaker , Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Linux NFS Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18 V2] Repair SWAP-over-NFS Message-ID: References: <163969801519.20885.3977673503103544412.stgit@noble.brown> <163994803576.25899.6298619065481174544@noble.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <163994803576.25899.6298619065481174544@noble.neil.brown.name> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 94C061C003E X-Stat-Signature: hi99eggesfn9x7sfo3b8p8zj8suymnfb Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=akbQMUgN; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of BATV+1bb9050bde7847c37d79+6694+infradead.org+hch@bombadil.srs.infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 198.137.202.133) smtp.mailfrom=BATV+1bb9050bde7847c37d79+6694+infradead.org+hch@bombadil.srs.infradead.org X-HE-Tag: 1640076529-620771 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 08:07:15AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > Thanks for fixing swap-over-NFS! Looks like it passes all the > > swap-related xfstests except for generic/357 on NFS v4.2. This test > > checks that we get -EINVAL on a reflinked swapfile, but I'm not sure > > if there is a way to check for that on the client side but if you have > > any ideas it would be nice to get that test passing while you're at > > it! > > Thanks for testing!. > I think that testing that swap fails on a reflinked file is bogus. This > isn't an important part of the API, it is just an internal > implementation detail. > I certainly understand that it could be problematic implementing swap on > a reflinked file within XFS and it is perfectly acceptable to fail such > a request. But if one day someone decided to implement it - should that > be seen as a regression? Yes, there is really no fundamental reason not to support swap to reflinked files, especially for NFS. We'll need some kind of opt-in/out for this test.