Perfect, thanks! I'll just smash them together pre-commit since you've tested the end result.

In D54758#1259273, @kevans wrote:

I was looking over this again- I think its' technically incomplete because we're missing its complement over in /usr/share for the system-distributed files: http://people.freebsd.org/~kevans/zfscompat.diff -- I haven't had a chance (machine) to test it, but it'd probably be good to land these together if you can confirm.

I was looking over this again- I think its' technically incomplete because we're missing its complement over in /usr/share for the system-distributed files: http://people.freebsd.org/~kevans/zfscompat.diff -- I haven't had a chance (machine) to test it, but it'd probably be good to land these together if you can confirm.

I')l plan on landing this later today if nobody else beats me to it. I don't believe we expect anything on the system to populate it, but failing to remove this part of the tree if the sysadmin has would be the expected behavior IMO -- we do the helpful thing in the common case, and the safe thing otherwise.

Ping.

In D31844#718844, @eric_metricspace.net wrote:

Abandoning, due to the existence of the upstream module in cddl

In D45647#1041512, @zlei wrote:

I guess the change for sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c go to upstream first. Will it ?

I guess the change for sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c go to upstream first. Will it ?

I would subtly change the title :-)
Otherwise, looks good to me.

Why not backport 506fe78c48 instead?

reviewed-by: allanjude

I don't have any objection to the change, then.

I have now successfully run a FreeBSD regression test suite on a ZFS root with block cloning enabled

In D41991#958356, @mm wrote:

I have run the ZFS test suite with block cloning enabled. There are no tests with different results as when it is not enabled.

I have run the ZFS test suite with block cloning enabled. There are no tests with different results as when it is not enabled.

I have run the ZFS test suite

In D41991#957622, @mjg wrote:

for example there was panic under load when running poudriere, i don't know if that is fixed

for example there was panic under load when running poudriere, i don't know if that is fixed

@mjg Does any specific bug come to your mind?

For this to be an option this review has to provide a list of bugs reported against block cloning and commits which fix them, as is I'm not even sure it was all sorted out.

Have you tried running the test suite on a ZFS system with this change applied?