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?
Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
