Re: [PATCH 02/26] block: Remove req_bio_endio()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/6/24 02:28, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/1/24 23:30, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> @@ -916,9 +888,8 @@ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, blk_status_t error,
>>   	if (blk_crypto_rq_has_keyslot(req) && nr_bytes >= blk_rq_bytes(req))
>>   		__blk_crypto_rq_put_keyslot(req);
>>   
>> -	if (unlikely(error && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(req) &&
>> -		     !(req->rq_flags & RQF_QUIET)) &&
>> -		     !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state)) {
>> +	if (unlikely(error && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(req) && !quiet) &&
>> +	    !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state)) {
> 
> The new indentation of !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state) looks odd to me ...
> 
>>   		blk_print_req_error(req, error);
>>   		trace_block_rq_error(req, error, nr_bytes);
>>   	}
>> @@ -930,12 +901,37 @@ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, blk_status_t error,
>>   		struct bio *bio = req->bio;
>>   		unsigned bio_bytes = min(bio->bi_iter.bi_size, nr_bytes);
>>   
>> -		if (bio_bytes == bio->bi_iter.bi_size)
>> +		if (unlikely(error))
>> +			bio->bi_status = error;
>> +
>> +		if (bio_bytes == bio->bi_iter.bi_size) {
>>   			req->bio = bio->bi_next;
> 
> The behavior has been changed compared to the original code: the original code
> only tests bio_bytes if error == 0. The new code tests bio_bytes no matter what
> value the 'error' variable has. Is this behavior change intentional?

No. I do not think it is a problem though since if there is an error, bio_bytes
will always be less than bio->bi_iter.bi_size. I will tweak this to restore the
previous behavior.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research





[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux