On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 04:18:27PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:13:02AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > On 08/01/2025 08:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> @@ -580,9 +580,24 @@ xfs_report_dioalign( > >> struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); > >> struct block_device *bdev = target->bt_bdev; > >> - stat->result_mask |= STATX_DIOALIGN; > >> + stat->result_mask |= STATX_DIOALIGN | STATX_DIO_READ_ALIGN; > > > > BTW, it would be a crappy userspace which can't handle fields which it did > > not ask for, e.g. asked for STATX_DIOALIGN, but got STATX_DIOALIGN and > > STATX_DIO_READ_ALIGN > > Well, the space is marked for extension. I don't think there ever > was a requirement only fields asked for are reported, but if that > feels safer I could switch to that.
