On 20.05.2022 09:30, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 20/05/2022 08:27, Javier González wrote:
So you are suggesting adding support for !PO2 in the block layer and
then a dm to present the device as a PO2 to the FS? This at least
addresses the hole issue for raw zoned block devices, so it can be a
first step.
This said, it seems to me that the changes to the FS are not being a
real issue. In fact, we are exposing some bugs while we generalize the
zone size support.
Could you point out what the challenges in btrfs are in the current
patches, that it makes sense to add an extra dm layer?
I personally don't like the padding we need to do for the super block.
As I've pointed out to Pankaj already, I don't think it is 100% powerfail
safe as of now. It could probably be made, but that would also involve
changing non-zoned btrfs code which we try to avoid as much as we can.
As Damien already said, we still have issues with the general zoned
support in btrfs, just have a look at the list of open issues [1] we
have.
Sounds good Johannes. I understand that the priority is to make btrfs
stable now, before introducing more variables. Let's stick to this and
then we can bring it back as the list of open issues becomes more
manageable.
[1] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f14a1d6f-90c10859-f14b9620-74fe485fffe0-3f1861e7739d8cc7&q=1&e=213fcc28-3f9d-41a1-b653-0dc0e203c718&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnaota%2Flinux%2Fissues%2F
Thanks for sharing this too. It is a good way to where to help
