From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sat Feb 10 19:45:27 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E1EF1830B for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:45:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367E96EA8D; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:45:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f137so15589670lfe.4; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:45:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ib1LkZ6SGdzWOee3q/uy4HBEYEpC3F3HSG1q8alkBzg=; b=t2Eyck9nUpQ7cowD+ljuK7a5KoH5W3+Fm0RdVdyDeYnlVyiCKXgMW8TChsAgAsD+gr oIKJ3iml9SEZPudjV8npO6tatlmSOJBrQxRCYH1BhqfT7cHQRIsdYPfytobON/8QZzf/ EFmMeelIHnIKIN8JpWuk1KmqNGmaBm0BEtLzIKkVk1YXn2YKgEkPdxReXMGFjRjPCRPr rs6Xnjx3z/vt+WAUNPIqZhVPTbWRlK00YZYROnT8mqU00B00dpHhwy/FjzxsxfvSwWLV IElvGGDhWAZwlJIEbW1rWJwyGQRqv2uOG8R8xOELBjeDIJUTp52lT4M8FTaKTQ0iigBx ckaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ib1LkZ6SGdzWOee3q/uy4HBEYEpC3F3HSG1q8alkBzg=; b=GI8VQtMLOYNJl7zJhzyiQjKBccqmpsIXpInmKzh4x1tHIAg77wSXksq5UrMPGpud1X kNro+cUWixL2+NSziSBOCYJgakPUQJnjMOJyR9RD+3sZr5q7s8zF28AxuYoRPNvZ9mQI dXLDWPNCFBA1iqcnCX4QZwiYoc7Zzg826UOl8rFjtPiK9+gMOU/idTAIbq688xuPO8YY 5sy6RiYuYagw8f7cwBgWpsIcv8rJVzavQFgBFbEw5a+Er9xNu3gnvfRa8sN/T5OgvPzO GG1c2ffqGL04fA1xCbBmcAbCVuC+1WlWYuFJSciyO5mgud0GdZJWCvo9qKuXF230lwXy 8F6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPALxuhErPbhBXwQtbOcFRatloxS5OftXKHrXDoeUbcDscqsSjpj OZCdwvr7bEDLV2txJ7DL99Oi19ooI7HS4DxRf9sjjQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224DIAtTHHQijfWJePGK4eb0FPp+eQQEWJfGMcGleztUe8DwRCCgV9yaPiQCUxdS1FAcKq7jl5bHLU2QDJeB6kg= X-Received: by 10.46.125.5 with SMTP id y5mr4629608ljc.89.1518291925117; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:45:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asomers@gmail.com Received: by 10.179.87.131 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:45:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1518291799.32585.228.camel@freebsd.org> References: <1e2f43fd-85da-6629-62d1-6e96790278e5@digiware.nl> <1518291799.32585.228.camel@freebsd.org> From: Alan Somers Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:45:24 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fqUhsRMGCSoregwtiAmtLYlUb7s Message-ID: Subject: Re: posix_fallocate on ZFS To: Ian Lepore Cc: Willem Jan Withagen , freebsd current Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:45:28 -0000 On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 11:24 -0700, Alan Somers wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Willem Jan Withagen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This has been disabled on ZFS since last November. > > > And I do understand the rationale on this. > > > > > > BUT > > > > > > I've now upgraded some of my HEAD Ceph test systems and they now fail, > > > since Ceph uses posix_fallocate() to allocate space for the > > > FileStore-journal. > > > > > > Is there any expectation that this is going to fixed in any near > future? > > > > > > --WjW > > > > > No. It's fundamentally impossible to support posix_fallocate on a COW > > filesystem like ZFS. Ceph should be taught to ignore an EINVAL result, > > since the system call is merely advisory. > > > > -Alan > > Unfortunately, posix documents that the function returns EINVAL only > due to bad input parameters, so ignoring that seems like a bad idea. > > Wouldn't it be better if we returned EOPNOTSUP if that's the actual > situation? That could be safely ignored. > I'm afraid you are mistaken. Posix _should've_ required EOPNOTSUP in this, but it actually requires EINVAL. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/posix_fallocate.html