Hey! Y'all are awesome! I added this simple patch
and all the tests that failed work now. I added
.splice_read too, don't know if I should have...
I'll run all the xfstests (so far I just ran the
handful of regressions so I could see that they
were passing) and if that goes well, I'll refresh
the orangefs linux-next tree. If that goes well, hopefully
Linus will accept this during the 5.11 merge window.
Thanks again!
-Mike
[root@vm1 linux]# git diff
diff --git a/fs/orangefs/file.c b/fs/orangefs/file.c
index af375e049aae..7417af40d33e 100644
--- a/fs/orangefs/file.c
+++ b/fs/orangefs/file.c
@@ -663,6 +663,8 @@ const struct file_operations orangefs_file_operations = {
.unlocked_ioctl = orangefs_ioctl,
.mmap = orangefs_file_mmap,
.open = generic_file_open,
+ .splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
+ .splice_write = iter_file_splice_write,
.flush = orangefs_flush,
.release = orangefs_file_release,
.fsync = orangefs_fsync,
[root@vm1 linux]#
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:07 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 02:05:52PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:26:28AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote:
> > > Greetings everyone...
> > >
> > > Omnibond has sent me off doing some testing chores lately.
> > > I made no Orangefs patches for 5.9 or 5.10 and none were sent,
> > > but I thought I should at least run through xfstests.
> > >
> > > There are tests that fail on 5.10-rc6 that didn't fail
> > > on 5.8-rc7, and I've done enough looking to see that the
> > > failure reasons all seem related.
> > >
> > > I will, of course, keep looking to try and understand these
> > > failures. Bisection might lead me somewhere. In case the
> > > notes I've taken so far trigger any of y'all to give me
> > > any (constructive :-) ) suggestions, I've included them below.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > generic/075
> > > 58rc7: ? (check.log says it ran, results file missing)
> > > 510rc6: failed, "do_copy_range:: Invalid argument"
> > > read the tests/generic/075 commit message for "detect
> > > preallocation support for fsx tests"
> > >
> > > generic/091
> > > 58rc7: passed, but skipped fallocate parts "filesystem does not support"
> > > 510rc6: failed, "do_copy_range:: Invalid argument"
> > >
> > > generic/112
> > > 58rc7: ? (check.log says it ran, results file missing)
> > > 510rc6: failed, "do_copy_range:: Invalid argument"
> > >
> > > generic/127
> > > 58rc7: ? (check.log says it ran, results file missing)
> > > 510rc6: failed, "do_copy_range:: Invalid argument"
> > >
> > > generic/249
> > > 58rc7: passed
> > > 510rc6: failed, "sendfile: Invalid argument"
> > > man 2 sendfile -> "SEE ALSO copy_file_range(2)"
> >
> > If sendfile() failed, then it's likely a splice related regression,
> > not a copy_file_range() problem. The VFS CFR implementation falls
> > back to splice if the fs doesn't provide a clone or copy offload
> > method.
> >
> > THere's only been a handful of changes to fs/splice.c since 5.8rc7,
> > so it might be worth doing a quick check reverting them first...
>
> I'd suggest applying the equivalent of
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/1606837496-21717-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> would be the first step.
