On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 08:58:34AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2023/7/25 08:22, Naohiro Aota wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 07:10:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:04:23AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >>> The test case itself is utilizing RAID5/6, which is not yet supported on > >>> zoned device. > >>> > >>> In the future we would use raid-stripe-tree (RST) feature, but for now > >>> just reject zoned devices completely. > >>> > >>> And since we're here, also update the _fixed_by_kernel_commit lines, as > >>> the proper fix is already merged upstream. > >> > >> Hmm, instead of spreading these checks, shouldn't we check that the > >> RAID level is supported, and have one single nob for that based off > >> it, similar to _btrfs_get_profile_configs()? > >> > > > > That's beneficial. We need to declare which profile the test going to use, > > something like this? > > > > _btrfs_require_profile raid5 raid6 > > > > or > > > > _btrfs_require_profile data:dup > > > > as the zoned mode cannot work with the DUP profile for data. > > The latter one sounds good, considering zoned support differs for data > and metadata profiles. > > Another thing is, do we have any sysfs files to indicate what profiles > we support? > For now we only have a "zoned" features, but no dedicated zoned specific > sysfs files. > > Would that be a good thing to consider? We don't have it but I think it's a good idea not just for testing, we export other information as the "features/supported_..." files. The profiles don't change often but with the incremental support for zoned this would make it easier for tests to keep up.
