Ming Lei <[email protected]> 于2025年11月23日周日 21:49写道： > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 03:56:58PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 1:07 PM Ming Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > static void bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio) > > > > { > > > > bio_endio(__bio_chain_endio(bio)); > > > > } > > > > > > bio_chain_endio() never gets called really, which can be thought as > > > `flag`, > > > > That's probably where this stops being relevant for the problem > > reported by Stephen Zhang. > > > > > and it should have been defined as `WARN_ON_ONCE(1);` for not confusing > > > people. > > > > But shouldn't bio_chain_endio() still be fixed to do the right thing > > if called directly, or alternatively, just BUG()? Warning and still > > doing the wrong thing seems a bit bizarre. > > IMO calling ->bi_end_io() directly shouldn't be encouraged. > > The only in-tree direct call user could be bcache, so is this reported > issue triggered on bcache? > > If bcache can't call bio_endio(), I think it is fine to fix > bio_chain_endio(). > > > > > I also see direct bi_end_io calls in erofs_fileio_ki_complete(), > > erofs_fscache_bio_endio(), and erofs_fscache_submit_bio(), so those > > are at least confusing. > > All looks FS bio(non-chained), so bio_chain_endio() shouldn't be involved > in erofs code base. >
Okay, will add that. Thanks, Shida > > Thanks, > Ming >
