On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 04:41:58PM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 30.03.23 17:52, David Sterba wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:43:42AM -0700, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > >> We have two functions for adding a page to a bio, __bio_add_page() which is > >> used to add a single page to a freshly created bio and bio_add_page() which is > >> used to add a page to an existing bio. > >> > >> While __bio_add_page() is expected to succeed, bio_add_page() can fail. > >> > >> This series converts the callers of bio_add_page() which can easily use > >> __bio_add_page() to using it and checks the return of bio_add_page() for > >> callers that don't work on a freshly created bio. > >> > >> Lastly it marks bio_add_page() as __must_check so we don't have to go again > >> and audit all callers. > >> > >> Changes to v1: > >> - Removed pointless comment pointed out by Willy > >> - Changed commit messages pointed out by Damien > >> - Colledted Damien's Reviews and Acks > >> > >> Johannes Thumshirn (19): > > > >> btrfs: repair: use __bio_add_page for adding single page > >> btrfs: raid56: use __bio_add_page to add single page > > > > The btrfs patches added to misc-next, thanks. > > > > Thanks but wouldn't it make more sense for Jens to pick up all of them? > The last patch in the series flips bio_add_pages() over to > __must_check and so it'll create an interdependency between the > btrfs and the block tree. I'd rather take it via btrfs tree, this avoids future merge conflicts.
