On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 08:26:52AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 09/09/2025 08:16, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > > > > This requires the user to know the version which corresponds to the feature. > > > > Is that how things are done for other such utilities and their versions vs > > > > features? > > > > > > > > I was going to suggest exporting something like > > > > _require_fio_atomic_writes(), and _require_fio_atomic_writes() calls > > > > _require_fio_version() to check the version. > > > (Sorry, I made a half reply in my last email) > > > > > > This looks better than only using _require_fio_version. But the nature is still > > > checking fio version. If we don't have a better idea to check if fio really > > > support atomic writes, the _require_fio_version is still needed. > > > Or we rename it to "__require_fio_version" (one more "_"), to mark it's > > > not recommended using directly. But that looks a bit like a trick 😂 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zorro > > Hey Zorro, I agree with your points that version might not be the best > > indicator esp for downstream software, but at this point I'm unsure > > what's the workaround. > > > > One thing that comes to mind is to let fio do the atomic write and use > > the tracepoints to confirm if RWF_ATOMIC was passed, but that adds a lot > > of dependency on tracing framework being present (im unsure if something > > like this is used somewhere in xfstests before). Further it's messy to > > figure out that out of all the IO fio command will do, which one to > > check for RWF_ATOMIC. > > > > It can be done I suppose but is this sort of complexity something we > > want to add is the question. Or do we just go ahead with the version > > check. > > I think that just checking the version is fine for this specific feature. > But I still also think that versioning should be hidden from the end user, > i.e. we should provide a helper like _require_fio_atomic_writes Sure, I'm okay. @Zorro, does that sound okay to you? > > thanks, > John
