On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 01:04:46PM -0800, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 06:46:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > + rq_list_move(rqlist, &requeue_list, req, prev, next); > > > + > > > + req = prev; > > > + if (!req) > > > + continue; > > > > Shouldn't this be a break? > > The condition just means we're at the beginning of the rqlist. There may > be more requests to consider, so we have to continue. > > Or are you saying any failed prep should just abandon the batched > sequence? If so, we would need to concat the return list with the rest > of rqlist before breaking. No, I misunderstood the check,
