Issues with FIEMAP, xfstests, Samba, ksmbd and CIFS

[David Howells]

David Howells <dhowells at redhat.com> wrote:

> So:
> 
>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE rather than
>    PUNCH_HOLE?
> 
>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FIEMAP rather than SEEK_DATA/HOLE?

 - Should Samba and ksmbd report 'unwritten' extents as being allocated?

>  - Should xfstests be less exacting in its FIEMAP analysis - or should this be
>    skipped for cifs?  I don't want to skip generic/009 as it checks some
>    corner cases that need testing, but it may not be possible to make the
>    exact extent matching work.