From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793692949; b=aHiSejPVmxty5MiuMU5FCBsiQe2DXMI7rWt2KyeBhDUyzw11KT4KXlXZmhjffmge9lzi /TcALGK3bx1RZfDQXQywezoFJoNLWqmObFA5zOXJe7lII+5NmRKHEVls5SITFhLfma+Sg T9+XHF6OFZPHpllw3t8qWr0OvWHm1Hfz/wKkI1AiFF2Gf7CJfdYIhAe/nUE3xBW7cQjDu fJOpZ3914beJ/5qlz8xY1BlBvY8AUuNbp3sYkSC4l8B5DeRbtug6ArQNu5MLuO9TpIgZf LYAR3kdCrSgQUkZ1f0HtKHz+ZaQHI+qNicnKO8yvCAvgS5wtaQS8VakKYVSCkZUkxlg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793692949; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent; bh=sfLMCaYmX3YFPpOD2Miw2+oapHdFlsXdhHabFRbBu7k=; b=Js9feJjRbrXyjsiHVxfPtM/h1XSPIx+UTp7GyVNMGA97M8ATXmkbvLYlfVZgRIaS8bPC QbxvR0Yley4G5izHRYpoSgSgf6gJPu0Y/ZwV1OEwAKy4bGIsQv0luIMa4byZAMhg0oqvP 6bRTjmUA/lgo6xavH0Sly3puXuZ3G3zmRFWzn1RKruDvwYokKj4sffsQ80R9e/2hbaBRk klJx9kWcnsKpLvg12LWVxvzatTv4kFsIqJfdPchDjpuSAwLaaymS+EzYcw8eqFaBgejUN YXW5uC98KGQ6p0QxOe/DjdAJTIB49zZqzuxKpzkRGxtvJmlxvRkRq7b0XkJZOcwPqGA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=213.95.11.211 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40667606A32C for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 08:02:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 40667606A32C 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 90D7068B05; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:02:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:02:23 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn Cc: hch@lst.de, mst@redhat.com, jasowangio@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, pbonzini@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, eperezma@redhat.com, dlemoal@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: Fix zone append sector reporting in batched completion Message-ID: <20261103080223.GA3975@lst.de> References: <20261027150654.GA14436@lst.de> <2026102810270846959TfFOThssBqrSo1PlP9X@zte.com.cn> X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2026102810270846959TfFOThssBqrSo1PlP9X@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 10:27:08AM +0800, shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn wrote: > I looked into adding blktests coverage, and there is a structural > problem. blktests cannot issue REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND from userspace: fio's > --zone_append goes through the io_uring_cmd NVMe passthrough path, so it > never reaches the driver's zone-append completion, and zbdioctl has no > append operation. blktests has no zone-append test today for the same > reason. Right. > That does not fit blktests, which is a block-layer test suite driven > from userspace. Two options as I see it: > > 1. an XFS reproducer (e.g. xfstests) - the one that actually > exercises the append completion path, or > 2. a blktests zbd test that covers a zoned virtio-blk with poll > queues, which would not reach the append part itself. > > I am happy to write either, or to leave it if you think the coverage > is not worth the churn. Which do you prefer? We do have some blktests test that use a file system in the zbd category (zbd/009, zbd/010, zbd/014) so I think we could do this in blktests. I.e. do a blktest that tests zoned polled I/O if we're on a zoned device that support polling.