[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <449658.1701866309@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 12:38:29 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: fstests@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issues with FIEMAP, xfstests, Samba, ksmbd and CIFS
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> So:
>
> - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE rather than
> PUNCH_HOLE?
>
> - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FIEMAP rather than SEEK_DATA/HOLE?
- Should Samba and ksmbd report 'unwritten' extents as being allocated?
> - Should xfstests be less exacting in its FIEMAP analysis - or should this be
> skipped for cifs? I don't want to skip generic/009 as it checks some
> corner cases that need testing, but it may not be possible to make the
> exact extent matching work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists