On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 12:33 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
