zfs_2_2: 2.2.5 -> 2.2.6

[amarshall]

• This release brings official support for Kernel 6.10
• Also update zfs_unstable as it would otherwise lag behind
• Upstream now links zpool completion, so only do so on older zfs (since we still need to support 2.1.x)

Changelog: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/releases/tag/zfs-2.2.6

Description of changes

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[toastal]

looks like a lot 6.11 compat merged as well … maybe good enough to compile with 6.11 for zfs-unstable’s maximum version for the bold?

[matdibu]

looks like a lot 6.11 compat merged as well … maybe good enough to compile with 6.11 for zfs-unstable’s maximum version for the bold?

I don't think that's a good idea, maybe OpenZFS team had a reason not to mark it compatible with 6.11

[eqfae]

Does anyone know how to lock the kernel version? zfs is slower for the latest kernel, plus mergers, etc., and cannot be updated for a long time.

[amarshall]

@eqfae See the manual.

[bphenriques]

Does anyone know how to lock the kernel version? zfs is slower for the latest kernel, plus mergers, etc., and cannot be updated for a long time.

Can you elaborate on slower ? For reference for others that pin to the latest zfs compatible kernel

[adamcstephens]

I personally recommend pinning to a specific kernel release line, e.g. linuxPackages_6_6. Using zfs.latestCompatibleLinuxPackages can expose you to downgrades, which I consider harmful, due to misalignment between the zfs project and kernel.

For example, imagine 6.6 is the LTS and 6.9 is the latest kernel. When 6.10 is released, the kernel team will drop 6.9 as it is no longer patched upstream. If zfs is not compatible (it's not) on day one of the release, latestCompatibleLinuxPackages will now resolve to 6.6, forcing a downgrade.

In this scenario I'd pin to linuxPackages_6_9. This will force a failure during eval if a kernel you're using is out of support and allow you to make the decision at that time. If a downgrade is acceptable, for something like the kernel I'd suggest to make it explicit.

[bphenriques]

I personally recommend pinning to a specific kernel release line, e.g. linuxPackages_6_6. Using zfs.latestCompatibleLinuxPackages can expose you to downgrades, which I consider harmful, due to misalignment between the zfs project and kernel.

For example, imagine 6.6 is the LTS and 6.9 is the latest kernel. When 6.10 is released, the kernel team will drop 6.9 as it is no longer patched upstream. If zfs is not compatible (it's not) on day one of the release, latestCompatibleLinuxPackages will now resolve to 6.6, forcing a downgrade.

In this scenario I'd pin to linuxPackages_6_9. This will force a failure during eval if a kernel you're using is out of support and allow you to make the decision at that time. If a downgrade is acceptable, for something like the kernel I'd suggest to make it explicit.

thank you, I hadn't thought on that. Will apply your suggestion.

[eqfae]

Does anyone know how to lock the kernel version? zfs is slower for the latest kernel, plus mergers, etc., and cannot be updated for a long time.

Can you elaborate on slower ? For reference for others that pin to the latest zfs compatible kernel

#337617 (comment)

在youtube有评测结果lqx内核为游戏提供最佳的性能 2.2.5-6.9.11是其zfs最新可用的内核
由于不会指定版本目前我使用boot.kernelPackages = pkgs.linuxKernel.packages.linux_xanmod

There are reviews on youtube with results of the lqx kernel providing the best performance for gaming 2.2.5-6.9.11 is the latest available kernel for its zfs
Since I can't specify the version I currently use boot.kernelPackages = pkgs.linuxKernel.packages.linux_xanmod

[ElvishJerricco]

This has broken the 2.1 build, btw.

/nix/store/ffr5qkpiyl0bdz15w1b8hmqnclw6938h-stdenv-linux/setup: line 229: cd: /nix/store/hn1s5py5wfinj0k1wq7ghhzwv19ahc72-zfs-kernel-2.1.15-6.6.49/share/bash-completion/completions: No such file or directory

[ElvishJerricco]

Yea, this is not conditional on buildUser. In fact, I actually think the line above it isn't even necessary in 2.2.*. Will add this to my zfs fixes pr: #340165

[github-actions]

Backport failed for release-24.05, because it was unable to cherry-pick the commit(s).

Please cherry-pick the changes locally and resolve any conflicts.

git fetch origin release-24.05
git worktree add -d .worktree/backport-339696-to-release-24.05 origin/release-24.05
cd .worktree/backport-339696-to-release-24.05
git switch --create backport-339696-to-release-24.05
git cherry-pick -x 636134b8ed2112412c1da441b4cc4d47a24e3bd3

[mweinelt]

Can someone take care of the stable backport?

[amarshall]

@mweinelt Yes, I will sometime later today.

[adamcstephens]

@mweinelt to 2.2.6? I think @amarshall was giving it more time but recently did #340074

[amarshall]

Yes I’ll open it later today but will do as draft and let it sit for a few days.

[mweinelt]

Whatever will provide support for 6.10 :)