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
But it is actually correct because that test bit is not part of the unlikely().
Not sure if that is intentional though.
> ...
>
>> 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 change actually. The bio_bytes test was in blk_update_request() already.
>
> Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
