From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 54D222F39A5 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:40:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765381222; cv=none; b=IvYY9yhi2BxNHWhWpJVSShqrEz4to1hq3utD+fBoBDbLTKwra+M0S/4T3UESZDjFW/hSbEJU4gs/ycEs8+xKQ83o31+zdgkmJ9PATaLoCwMlsG/jHORN/+V6ldsvKG52Xfs2fhIgwl/IQmRLJ1OHcdufmWVUl1/gJ2bG9tQ0ZzE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765381222; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FnjrLaX/twMAs3lfht2TzeU0+9b+8Bbt7bSJnis37V8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Dkbo2HVFPJuDM1TQiU6Yyfq2ujIPNMZD7b08FLL/k7G7RKscIMCh72sW7rlWLonyEos1h7q7H50NoKf71M7d6mfYULrBUzV21+bwRKVqcrjNVTZ26YVI2kElMXeF9rCKO1oZ5I2sYESqFbr6i2N/o+ChxUu+AiAtNPtWJhENFaQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 58DB3227A87; Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:40:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:40:16 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix XFS_ERRTAG_FORCE_ZERO_RANGE for zoned file system Message-ID: <20251210154016.GA3851@lst.de> References: <20251210090400.3642383-1-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:36:55AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > Is there a reason in particular for testing this with the zone mode? > It's just a DEBUG thing for the zeroing mechanism. Why not just filter > out the is_zoned_inode() case at the injection site? Because I also want to be able to test the zeroing code for zoned file systems, especially given zeroing is a bit of painful area for out of place write file systems like zoned XFS. > I suppose you could argue there is a point if we have separate zoned > mode iomap callbacks and whatnot, but I agree the factoring here is a > little unfortunate. I wonder if it would be nicer if we could set a flag > or something on an ac and toggle the zone mode off that, but on a quick > look I don't see a flag field in the zone ctx. I don't really follow what you mean here. > Hmm.. I wonder if we could still do something more clever where the zone > mode has its own injection site to bump the res, and then the lower > level logic just checks whether the reservation is sufficient for a full > zero..? I'm not totally sure if that's ultimately cleaner, but maybe > worth a thought.. We could have a different site for that injection, but we'd still need to move the current one or at least make it conditional so that it can't trigger for zoned mode. I doubt that's less ugly than this version.