Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <447324.1701860432@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <447324.1701860432@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     fstests@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issues with FIEMAP, xfstests, Samba, ksmbd and CIFS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <449657.1701866309.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date:   Wed, 06 Dec 2023 12:38:29 +0000
Message-ID: <449658.1701866309@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> So:
> =

>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE rather than
>    PUNCH_HOLE?
> =

>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FIEMAP rather than SEEK_DATA/HOLE?

 - Should Samba and ksmbd report 'unwritten' extents as being allocated?

>  - Should xfstests be less exacting in its FIEMAP analysis - or should t=
his be
>    skipped for cifs?  I don't want to skip generic/009 as it checks some
>    corner cases that need testing, but it may not be possible to make th=
e
>    exact extent matching work.