Hi Kim: At 2026-01-14 01:05:35, "Jaegeuk Kim" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 01/12, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 1/12/2026 4:52 PM, Nanzhe Zhao wrote: >> > >> > At 2026-01-12 09:02:48, "Chao Yu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > @@ -2545,6 +2548,11 @@ static int f2fs_read_data_large_folio(struct >> > > > inode *inode, >> > > > } >> > > > trace_f2fs_read_folio(folio, DATA); >> > > > if (rac) { >> > > > + if (!folio_in_bio) { >> > > > + if (!ret) >> > > >> > > ret should never be true here? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > Yes.Need I send a v3 patch to remove the redundant check? >> >> Yes, I think so. > >Applied in dev-test with it. >
Thanks for apply! As an aside, I noticed that f2fs_folio_state removed the uptodate bitmap. Do we need to consider the case where a bio ends up with bi_status set to error (which could potentially cause a large folio to be only partially read successfully)? Also, is bio submission and the submit_and_realloc loop never fails ? Thanks, Nanzhe Zhao _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
