Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-208349-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:14:42 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: Disable fallocate() zero and discard if not
 supported
Message-ID: <ZmcKUgJXc9MOLvqj@infradead.org>
References: <20240607091555.2504-1-chrubis@suse.cz>
 <ZmPvNu-YijbtJkeR@infradead.org>
 <ZmcKA3zHsOYlyaiq@yuki>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZmcKA3zHsOYlyaiq@yuki>

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Do we need noinline attribute for the function as well or unlikely() in
> the if condition?

unlikely sounds like the right thing here.

> > (and maybe one day we figure out a way for the file system to
> > advertise what fallocate modes it actually supports..)
> 
> One of my ideas was to try fallocate() with zero size in the
> loop_reconfigure_limits() to see if we get EOPNOTSUPP but for that to
> work we would have to make sure that we do not bail early on zero size
> in the vfs layer...

And the VFS layer doesn't know, it has to go all the way into the
file system..