On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 03:22:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:15:05AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote: > > From: Zhang Yi <yi.zh...@huawei.com> > > > > Add a new attribute flag to statx to determine whether a bdev or a file > > supports the unmap write zeroes command. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zh...@huawei.com> > > --- > > block/bdev.c | 4 ++++ > > fs/ext4/inode.c | 9 ++++++--- > > include/uapi/linux/stat.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/bdev.c b/block/bdev.c > > index 4844d1e27b6f..29b0e5feb138 100644 > > --- a/block/bdev.c > > +++ b/block/bdev.c > > @@ -1304,6 +1304,10 @@ void bdev_statx(struct path *path, struct kstat > > *stat, > > queue_atomic_write_unit_max_bytes(bd_queue)); > > } > > > > + if (bdev_write_zeroes_unmap(bdev)) > > + stat->attributes |= STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP; > > + stat->attributes_mask |= STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP; > > Hmm, shouldn't this always be set by stat? But I might just be > really confused what attributes_mask is, and might in fact have > misapplied it in past patches of my own..
attributes_mask contains attribute flags known to the filesystem, whereas attributes contains flags actually set on the file. "known_attributes" would have been a better name, but that's water under the bridge. :P > Also shouldn't the patches to report the flag go into the bdev/ext4 > patches that actually implement the feature for the respective files > to keep bisectability? /I/ think so... --D
