[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKjkUSL1zxL0VNGC@mozart.vkv.me>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:42:41 -0700
From: Calvin Owens <calvin@...nvd.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Accept and ignore compression level for lzo
On Friday 08/22 at 20:45 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 02:28:29AM -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > On Friday 08/22 at 17:57 +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > 在 2025/8/22 17:15, Calvin Owens 写道:
> > > > The compression level is meaningless for lzo, but before commit
> > > > 3f093ccb95f30 ("btrfs: harden parsing of compression mount options"),
> > > > it was silently ignored if passed.
> > >
> > > Since LZO doesn't support compression level, why providing a level parameter
> > > in the first place?
> >
> > Interpreting "no level" as "level is always one" doesn't seem that
> > unreasonable to me, especially since it has worked forever.
>
> As it currently works, no level means use the default, which is defined
> for all compression. For LZO it's implicit and 1.
>
> > > I think it's time for those users to properly update their mount options.
> >
> > It's a user visable regression, and fixing it has zero possible
> > downside. I think you should take my patch :)
>
> I tend to agree this is a usability regression, even if LZO is a bit odd
> with levels, accepting the allowed values should work.
>
> The mount options and level combinations that should work:
>
> - compress=NAME - use default level for NAME
> - compress=NAME:0 - use default, while accepting the level setting
> - compress=NAME:N - if N is in the allowed range for NAME then take it
>
> The syntax is consistent for all three compressions.
Thanks David.
Maybe the below is a little more palatable? Letting the single level be
a detail so the branches in btrfs_parse_compress() all match?
But, the compression level ends up being printk'd as '1', where it has
always been '0' in the past (and still is in 6.17-rc):
- BTRFS info (device vda state M): use lzo compression, level 0
+ BTRFS info (device vda state M): use lzo compression, level 1
With my v1 it's still always printed as zero, if that's preferable.
-----8<-----
From: Calvin Owens <calvin@...nvd.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Accept and ignore compression level for lzo
The compression level is meaningless for lzo, but before commit
3f093ccb95f30 ("btrfs: harden parsing of compression mount options"),
it was silently ignored if passed.
After that commit, passing a level with lzo fails to mount:
BTRFS error: unrecognized compression value lzo:1
Restore the old behavior, in case any users were relying on it.
Fixes: 3f093ccb95f30 ("btrfs: harden parsing of compression mount options")
Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvin@...nvd.org>
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index a262b494a89f..bbcaac7022b0 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -299,9 +299,10 @@ static int btrfs_parse_compress(struct btrfs_fs_context *ctx,
btrfs_set_opt(ctx->mount_opt, COMPRESS);
btrfs_clear_opt(ctx->mount_opt, NODATACOW);
btrfs_clear_opt(ctx->mount_opt, NODATASUM);
- } else if (btrfs_match_compress_type(string, "lzo", false)) {
+ } else if (btrfs_match_compress_type(string, "lzo", true)) {
ctx->compress_type = BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO;
- ctx->compress_level = 0;
+ ctx->compress_level = btrfs_compress_str2level(BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO,
+ string + 4);
btrfs_set_opt(ctx->mount_opt, COMPRESS);
btrfs_clear_opt(ctx->mount_opt, NODATACOW);
btrfs_clear_opt(ctx->mount_opt, NODATASUM);
--
2.47.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists