Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> 于2025年12月5日周五 16:55写道： > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 8:46 AM Stephen Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> 于2025年12月4日周四 17:37写道： > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 11:31 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 3:48 AM Stephen Zhang <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > This one should also be dropped because the 'prev' and 'new' are in > > > > > the wrong order. > > > > > > > > Ouch. Thanks for pointing this out. > > > > > > Linus has merged the fix for this bug now, so this patch can be > > > updated / re-added. > > > > > > > Thank you for the update. I'm not clear on what specifically has been > > merged or how to verify it. > > Could you please clarify which fix was merged, > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a157e0a0aa5 > "gfs2: Fix use of bio_chain" > >
Thank you for the detailed clarification. Here is a polite and professional rephrasing of your message: --- [WARNING] Hello, I may not have expressed myself clearly, and you might have misunderstood my point. In the original code, the real end I/O handler (`gfs2_end_log_read`) was placed at the end of the chained bio list, while the newer `bio_chain_endio` was placed earlier. With `bio_chain(new, prev)`, the chain looked like: `bio1 → bio2 → bio3` `bio_chain_endio → bio_chain_endio → gfs2_end_log_read` This ensured the actual handler (`gfs2_end_log_read`) was triggered at the end of the chain. However, after the fix changed the order to `bio_chain(prev, new)`, the chain now looks like: `bio1 → bio2 → bio3` `gfs2_end_log_read → bio_chain_endio → bio_chain_endio` This seems to place `gfs2_end_log_read` at the beginning rather than the end, potentially preventing it from being executed as intended. I hope I misunderstand the gfs2 code logic, and your fix may still be correct. However, given how quickly the change was made and ported back, I wanted to highlight this concern in case the original behavior was intentional. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Shida > > and if I should now resubmit the cleanup patches? > > > > Thanks, > > Shida > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andreas > > > > > >
