Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] [PATCH v9 0/3] Introduce provisioning primitives

From: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	 "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] [PATCH v9 0/3] Introduce provisioning primitives
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:59:48 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG9=OMMar0shTijQfehFSktir2vsvRkvH8t69gREzVyLKyPH4A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVvCsPelezZesshx@dread.disaster.area>

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 12:33 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 01:26:51PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 4:56 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 05:01:35PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This patch series is version 9 of the patch series to introduce
> > > > block-level provisioning mechanism (original [1]), which is useful for
> > > > provisioning space across thinly provisioned storage architectures (loop
> > > > devices backed by sparse files, dm-thin devices, virtio-blk). This
> > > > series has minimal changes over v8[2], with a couple of patches dropped
> > > > (suggested by Dave).
> > > >
> > > > This patch series is rebased from the linux-dm/dm-6.5-provision-support
> > > > [3] on to (a12deb44f973 Merge tag 'input-for-v6.7-rc0' ...). The final
> > > > patch in the series is a blktest (suggested by Dave in 4) which was used
> > > > to test out the provisioning flow for loop devices on sparse files on an
> > > > ext4 filesystem.
> > >
> > > What happened to the XFS patch I sent to support provisioning for
> > > fallocate() operations through XFS?
> > >
> > Apologies, I missed out on mentioning that the XFS patches work well
> > with loop devices.
> >
> > I might have misunderstood: were those patches only for sanity testing
> > or would you prefer that I send those out as a part of this series? I
> > can whip up a quick v10 if so!
>
> I was implying that if you are going to be adding support to random
> block devices for people to actually test out, then you should be
> adding support to filesystems and writing new -fstests- to ensure
> that loop devices are actually provisioning blocks at exactly the
> locations that correspond to the physical file extents the
> filesystem provisioned, too.
>

Fair enough, let me work on an additional fstests patch to validate that.

Best
Sarthak

> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com