NAS-123123 / 22.12.4 / Fix raw receive with different indirect block size.

[ixhamza]

Ticket: https://ixsystems.atlassian.net/browse/NAS-122583

Unlike regular receive, raw receive require destination to have the same block structure as the source. In case of dnode reclaim this triggers two special cases, requiring special handling:

• If dn_nlevels == 1, we can change the ibs, but dnode_set_blksz() should not dirty the data buffer if block size does not change, or durign receive dbuf_dirty_lightweight() will trigger assertion.
• If dn_nlevels > 1, we just can't change the ibs, dnode_set_blksz() would fail and receive_object would trigger assertion, so we should destroy and recreate the dnode from scratch.

Reviewed-by: Paul Dagnelie pcd@delphix.com
Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin mav@FreeBSD.org
Sponsored by: iXsystems, Inc.
Closes openzfs#15039

Motivation and Context

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
• Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Library ABI change (libzfs, libzfs_core, libnvpair, libuutil and libzfsbootenv)
• Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

• My code follows the OpenZFS code style requirements.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the contributing document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have run the ZFS Test Suite with this change applied.
• All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

[bugclerk]

Jira URL: https://ixsystems.atlassian.net/browse/NAS-123123

[ixhamza]

@amotin I am not sure if we should really add 7468f5d if we just want to cherry-pick it to release/22.12.3 branch.

[amotin]

@ixhamza It seems purely cosmetic, but I don't see why not merge. I just wonder what this version would mean for different releases (22.12.3.3 vs 22.12.4).

[ixhamza]

@amotin zfs --version result would differ. If you want, I can merge it.

[amotin]

@ixhamza I'd like versions to be consistent between all branches. I am OK either way. If 2.1.12-1 in other branch includes more than this change, then here would have to be something like If 2.1.12-0.1, or whatever sub-versioning is possible there. Or we may give up on this, relying only on TrueNAS versioning.

[ixhamza]

Thanks, @amotin. I agree with you. To avoid more confusion, I think it's better to revert 7468f5d on truenas/zfs-2.1-release and rely on Truenas versioning if you agree.

[amotin]

better to revert 7468f5d on truenas/zfs-2.1-release and rely on Truenas versioning

Yea. That version description, but including other changes there there is confusing.