Re: [PATCH 02/26] block: Remove req_bio_endio()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 2/1/24 23:30, Damien Le Moal wrote:

@@ -916,9 +888,8 @@ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, blk_status_t 
error,
        if (blk_crypto_rq_has_keyslot(req) && nr_bytes >= blk_rq_bytes(req))
                __blk_crypto_rq_put_keyslot(req);

- if (unlikely(error && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(req) &&

-                    !(req->rq_flags & RQF_QUIET)) &&
-                    !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state)) {
+       if (unlikely(error && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(req) && !quiet) &&
+           !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state)) {

The new indentation of !test_bit(GD_DEAD, &req->q->disk->state) looks odd to me 
...

                blk_print_req_error(req, error);
                trace_block_rq_error(req, error, nr_bytes);
        }
@@ -930,12 +901,37 @@ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, blk_status_t 
error,
                struct bio *bio = req->bio;
                unsigned bio_bytes = min(bio->bi_iter.bi_size, nr_bytes);

- if (bio_bytes == bio->bi_iter.bi_size)

+               if (unlikely(error))
+                       bio->bi_status = error;
+
+               if (bio_bytes == bio->bi_iter.bi_size) {
                        req->bio = bio->bi_next;

The behavior has been changed compared to the original code: the original code
only tests bio_bytes if error == 0. The new code tests bio_bytes no matter what
value the 'error' variable has. Is this behavior change intentional?

Otherwise this patch looks good to me.

Thanks,

Bart.