On 07/03/2022 16:44, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:56:30AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> btrfs maps zones to block groups and the sectors between zone capacity >> and zone size are marked as unusable. The report above is not showing >> that. The coding is correct though. The block allocation will not be >> attempted beyond zone capacity. > > That does not explain or justify why zone size was used instead of zone > capacity. Using the zones size gives an incorrect inflated sense of actual > capacity, and users / userspace applications can easily missuse that. > > Should other filesystems follow this logic as well? If so why? > The justification is, when btrfs zoned support was implemented there was no zone capacity. This started with zns and thus btrfs' knowledge of zone_capacity came with it's zns support. So instead of playing the blame game for whatever reason I don't want to know, you could have reported the bug or fixed it yourself. It's not that Naohiro, Damien or I aren't following bug reports of zoned btrfs on the mailing lists. Byte, Johannes
