On 12/6/20 6:18 AM, Tom Yan wrote:
While it seems to have worked for so long, it doesn't seem right
that we set the new bio as the parent. bio_chain() seems to be used
in the other way everywhere else anyway.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-lib.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index e90614fd8d6a..918deaf5c8a4 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ struct bio *blk_next_bio(struct bio *bio, unsigned int nr_pages, gfp_t gfp)
struct bio *new = bio_alloc(gfp, nr_pages);
if (bio) {
- bio_chain(bio, new);
+ bio_chain(new, bio);
submit_bio(bio);
}
I don't think this is correct.
This code is submitting the original bio, and we _want_ to keep the
newly allocated one even though the original might have been completed
already. If we were setting the 'parent' to the original bio upper
layers might infer that the entire request has been completed (as the
original bio is now the 'parent' bio), which is patently not true.
So, rather not.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
