Re: [PATCH 1/9] block: fix data loss and stale date exposure problems during append write

Ming Lei <[email protected]> Sat, 22 Nov 2025 20:15:41 +0800

Newsgroups	dev.linux.lists.gfs2,dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.nvdimm,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.infradead.lists.linux-nvme,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs
Message-ID	<aSGpbb3VUdQEGfmu@fedora>

On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 04:17:40PM +0800, zhangshida wrote:
> From: Shida Zhang <[email protected]>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
>  block/bio.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index b3a79285c27..55c2c1a0020 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
>  
>  static void bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
>  {
> -	bio_endio(__bio_chain_endio(bio));
> +	bio_endio(bio);
>  }
 
bio_chain_endio() should never get called, so how can this change make any
difference?

Thanks,
Ming