On 5/26/23 12:37 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 24.05.23 17:02, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/2/23 4:19?AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>> We have two functions for adding a page to a bio, __bio_add_page() which is >>> used to add a single page to a freshly created bio and bio_add_page() which is >>> used to add a page to an existing bio. >>> >>> While __bio_add_page() is expected to succeed, bio_add_page() can fail. >>> >>> This series converts the callers of bio_add_page() which can easily use >>> __bio_add_page() to using it and checks the return of bio_add_page() for >>> callers that don't work on a freshly created bio. >>> >>> Lastly it marks bio_add_page() as __must_check so we don't have to go again >>> and audit all callers. >> >> Looks fine to me, though it would be nice if the fs and dm people could >> give this a quick look. Should not take long, any empty bio addition >> should, by definition, be able to use a non-checked page addition for >> the first page. >> > > I think the FS side is all covered. @Mike could you have a look at the dm > patches? Not the iomap one, that was my main concern. Not that this is tricky stuff, but still... -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
