Re: [PATCH] xfs: add FALLOC_FL_ALLOCATE_RANGE to supported flags mask

[Carlos Maiolino]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:33:44PM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
> From: Youling Tang <tangyouling@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Add FALLOC_FL_ALLOCATE_RANGE to the set of supported fallocate flags in
> XFS_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED. This change improves code clarity and maintains
> by explicitly showing this flag in the supported flags mask.
> 
> Note that since FALLOC_FL_ALLOCATE_RANGE is defined as 0x00, this addition
> has no functional modifications.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <tangyouling@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> index 48254a72071b..d7f6b078d413 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> @@ -1335,7 +1335,8 @@ xfs_falloc_allocate_range(
>  }
> 
>  #define	XFS_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED						\
> -		(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE |		\
> +		(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE |					\
> +		 FALLOC_FL_ALLOCATE_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE |	\
>  		 FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE |	\
>  		 FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE)

This sounds reasonable. Could you please add it as the first flag to
keep "the right order"?

Other than this nitpick, you can add:

Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>

> 
> --
> 2.34.1
> 
>