On 8/7/25 16:33, Carlos Maiolino wrote: >>> The problem I want to raise is not about code size increase, but about >>> having XFS_RT tied with BLK_DEV_ZONED. >>> I know it doesn't force users to use XFS_RT, but there are distros out >>> there which purposely disables XFS_RT, but at the same time might want >>> BLK_DEV_ZONED enabled to use, for example with btrfs. >> >> Yes. Fedora is one. With it, we can use btrfs on zoned devices (and zonefs too) >> but not XFS because they do not enable XFS_RT. > > $ grep XFS_RT /boot/config-6.15.8-200.fc42.x86_64 > CONFIG_XFS_RT=y > > Fedora do Enable XFS_RT :-) Weird. Checked on my end and yes, it is enabled. Last time I checked, it was not... Maybe I made a mistake when checking. >> So I can send a patch for their >> kernel config to see if they would accept it. And do the same for many other >> distros that have a similar config. >> >> Or this patch to solve this in one go... > > I don't think this is a solution. Offloading distributions > responsibility to the upstream projects is almost never a good idea. > While you fix a problem for one distro, you cause a problem in another. OK. > >> >>>>> Forcing enabling a filesystem configuration because a specific block >>>>> feature is enabled doesn't sound the right thing to do IMHO. >>>> >>>> Well, it is nicer for the average user who may not be aware that this feature >>>> is needed for zoned block devices. >>> >>> But for the average user, wouldn't be the distribution's responsibility >>> to actually properly enable/disable the correct configuration? >>> I don't see average users building their own kernel, even more actually >>> using host-managed/host-aware disks. >> >> Yes, getting XFS_RT enabled through distros is the other solution. A lot more >> painful though. > > I consider removing the freedom of distributions to choose what they > want/not want to enable painful. With this patch, any distribution that > wants to not enable XFS_RT with zoned devices will need to custom patch > their kernels, and this create a lot of technical debt, specially for > non-mainstream distributions which don't have enough people working on > them. > > Maintaining a kernel config file is way less complicated than keeping a > stack of custom patches, and ensuring the same patches will be available > on the next releases. > > Yes, might not be the best scenario to go and convince your distro of > choice to enable this or that kernel option, but then offloading this to > kernel maintainers just because your distro doesn't do it is not the > right thing to do. Understood. >> So is it a hard no for the XFS_RT automatic select ? > > I'm always fine changing my mind (even if I need to knock my head on > the desk a few times before). But unless we have a good reason to remove > distributions the possibility to have zoned devices enabled without > XFS_RT, in lieu of distributions that don't want to bother maintaining > their configuration files, this is a hard no from me. > > And I don't consider "changing the config file of a distribution is > painful" as a good reason. I understand. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
