On 4/24/25 10:23, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:20:09AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
Because the test is trivially wrong.
I stronly disagree with that. We also don't support < 512 byte LBA
sizes to give an example.
fio already supports it
you are just passing a wrong parameter
< 512 LBA is a different case because there is so much both in kernel
and in userspace that assumes 512-byte granularity. But there is no
such deeply-ingrained assumption for zones. You just have to set the
parameter correctly.
Plus, smaller zones are more efficient at reducing write amplification,
in the same way as smaller block sizes.
If you really think such zone sizes should not be supported, then go
add such a restriction to all the zone standards.
Yes, it would be nice to have a sanity check for that and reject it
early, but no one is going to rewrite tests to remove that "assumption".
This assumption is very weak. It can easily be removed.
--Sean
