On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:26 AM Johannes Thumshirn <jth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 31/03/2023 20:13, Song Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:44 AM Johannes Thumshirn > > <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Check if adding pages to resync bio fails and if bail out. > >> > >> As the comment above suggests this cannot happen, WARN if it actually > >> happens. > >> > >> This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/md/raid1-10.c | 7 ++++++- > >> drivers/md/raid10.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c > >> index e61f6cad4e08..c21b6c168751 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c > >> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c > >> @@ -105,7 +105,12 @@ static void md_bio_reset_resync_pages(struct bio *bio, struct resync_pages *rp, > >> * won't fail because the vec table is big > >> * enough to hold all these pages > >> */ > > > > We know these won't fail. Shall we just use __bio_add_page? > > We could yes, but I kind of like the assert() style warning. > But of cause ultimately your call. The assert() style warning is fine. In this case, please remove the "won't fail ..." comments. Thanks, Song
