Re: main [and, likely, stable/14]: do not set vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled=1 with that zpool feature enabled because it still leads to panics

From: Mark Millard <>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 19:40:36 UTC
On Sep 7, 2023, at 11:48, Glen Barber <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 11:17:22AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>> When I next have time, should I retry based on a more recent
>> vintage of main that includes 969071be938c ?
> Yes, please, if you can.

As stands, I rebooted that machine into my normal
enviroment, so the after-crash-with-dump-info
context is preserved. I'll presume lack of a need
to preserve that context unless I hear otherwise.
(But I'll work on this until later today.)

Even my normal environment predates the commit in
question by a few commits. So I'll end up doing a
more general round of updates overall.

Someone can let me know if there is a preference
for debug over non-debug for the next test run.

Looking at "git: 969071be938c - main", the relevant
part seems to be just (white space possibly not
preserved accurately):

diff --git a/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c b/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c
index 9fb5aee6a023..4e4161ef1a7f 100644
--- a/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c
+++ b/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c
@@ -3076,12 +3076,14 @@ vn_copy_file_range(struct vnode *invp, off_t *inoffp, struct vnode *outvp,
 		goto out;
-	 * If the two vnode are for the same file system, call
+	 * If the two vnodes are for the same file system type, call
 	 * VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE(), otherwise call vn_generic_copy_file_range()
-	 * which can handle copies across multiple file systems.
+	 * which can handle copies across multiple file system types.
 	*lenp = len;
-	if (invp->v_mount == outvp->v_mount)
+	if (invp->v_mount == outvp->v_mount ||
+	    strcmp(invp->v_mount->mnt_vfc->vfc_name,
+	    outvp->v_mount->mnt_vfc->vfc_name) == 0)
 		error = VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE(invp, inoffp, outvp, outoffp,
 		    lenp, flags, incred, outcred, fsize_td);

That looks to call VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE in more contexts and
vn_generic_copy_file_range in fewer.

The backtrace I reported involves: VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE
So it appears this change is unlikely to invalidate my
test result,  although failure might happen sooner if
more VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE calls happen with the newer code.

That in turns means that someone may come up with some
other change for me to test by the time I get around to
setting up another test. Let me know if so.

Mark Millard
marklmi at