linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] gfs2: Replace the repetitive bio chaining code patterns

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHc6FU5DAhrRKyYjuZ+qF84rCsUDiPo3iPoZ67NvN-pbunJH4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 11:31:17 +0100
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@...il.com>
Cc: Johannes.Thumshirn@....com, hch@...radead.org, gruenba@...hat.com, 
	ming.lei@...hat.com, Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, 
	nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	zhangshida@...inos.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] gfs2: Replace the repetitive bio chaining code patterns

On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 3:48 AM Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@...il.com> wrote:
> zhangshida <starzhangzsd@...il.com> 于2025年11月28日周五 16:33写道：
> >
> > From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>
> >
> > Replace duplicate bio chaining logic with the common
> > bio_chain_and_submit helper function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>
> > ---
> >  fs/gfs2/lops.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lops.c b/fs/gfs2/lops.c
> > index 9c8c305a75c..0073fd7c454 100644
> > --- a/fs/gfs2/lops.c
> > +++ b/fs/gfs2/lops.c
> > @@ -487,8 +487,7 @@ static struct bio *gfs2_chain_bio(struct bio *prev, unsigned int nr_iovecs)
> >         new = bio_alloc(prev->bi_bdev, nr_iovecs, prev->bi_opf, GFP_NOIO);
> >         bio_clone_blkg_association(new, prev);
> >         new->bi_iter.bi_sector = bio_end_sector(prev);
> > -       bio_chain(new, prev);
> > -       submit_bio(prev);
> > +       bio_chain_and_submit(prev, new);
>
> This one should also be dropped because the 'prev' and 'new' are in
> the wrong order.

Ouch. Thanks for pointing this out.

> Thanks,
> Shida
>
> >         return new;
> >  }
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>

Andreas