On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:56:52AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 04:44:38AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > @@ -3068,6 +3069,12 @@ static int submit_bh_wbc(int op, int op_flags, struct buffer_head *bh,
> > }
> >
> > submit_bio(bio);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int submit_bh_wbc(int op, int op_flags, struct buffer_head *bh,
> > + enum rw_hint write_hint, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > +{
> > + __bh_submit(bh, op | op_flags, write_hint, wbc, end_bio_bh_io_sync);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> I believe this will break use cases where the file system sets
> bh->b_end_io and then calls submit_bh(), which then calls
> submit_bh_wbc(). That's because with this change, calls to
> submit_bh_wbc() --- include submit_bh() --- ignores bh->b_end_io and
> results in end_bio_bh_io_sync getting used.
I think you're confused between the two end_ios. The final argument
to bh_submit() and __bh_submit() is a bio_end_io_t. end_bio_bh_io_sync()
calls bh->b_end_io.
