Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> 于2025年11月28日周五 20:58写道： > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 9:33 AM zhangshida <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Shida Zhang <[email protected]> > > > > Now that all potential callers of bio_chain_endio have been > > eliminated, completely prohibit any future calls to this function. > > > > Suggested-by: Ming Lei <[email protected]> > > Suggested-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <[email protected]> > > --- > > block/bio.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c > > index aa43435c15f..2473a2c0d2f 100644 > > --- a/block/bio.c > > +++ b/block/bio.c > > @@ -323,8 +323,13 @@ static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio) > > return parent; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * This function should only be used as a flag and must never be called. > > + * If execution reaches here, it indicates a serious programming error. > > + */ > > static void bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio) > > { > > + BUG_ON(1); > > The below call is dead code and should be removed. With that, nothing > remains of the first patch in this queue ("block: fix incorrect logic > in bio_chain_endio") and that patch can be dropped.
Yeah, that makes it much clearer. I will do that. Thanks, Shida > > > bio_endio(bio); > > } > > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > Thanks, > Andreas >
