Re: [PATCHv3 1/6] block/bio: remove duplicate append pages code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:49:41AM +0200, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:38:32AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:01:14PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!max_append_sectors))
> > > > -		return 0;
> > > I don't see this check in the append path. Should it be added in
> > > bio_iov_add_zone_append_page() function?
> > 
> > I'm not sure this check makes a lot of sense. If it just returns 0 here, then
> > won't that get bio_iov_iter_get_pages() stuck in an infinite loop? The bio
> > isn't filling, the iov isn't advancing, and 0 indicates keep-going.
> Yeah but if max_append_sectors is zero, then bio_add_hw_page() also
> returns 0 as follows:
> ....
> 	if (((bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len) >> 9) > max_sectors)
> 		return 0;
> ....
> With WARN_ON_ONCE, we at least get a warning message if it gets stuck in an
> infinite loop because of max_append_sectors being zero right?

The return for this function is the added length, not an indicator of success.
And we already handle '0' as an error from bio_iov_add_zone_append_page():

	if (bio_add_hw_page(q, bio, page, len, offset,
			queue_max_zone_append_sectors(q), &same_page) != len)
		return -EINVAL;



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux