Re: [PATCH] Revert "bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io"
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:34:36 -0800
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-bcache,org.kernel.vger.linux-block |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:30:41AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:07:54AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 02:09:39PM +0800, [email protected] wrote: > > > From: Coly Li <[email protected]> > > > > > > This reverts commit 53280e398471f0bddbb17b798a63d41264651325. > > > > > > The above commit tries to address the race in bio chain handling, > > > but it seems in detached_dev_end_io() simply using bio_endio() to > > > replace bio->bi_end_io() may introduce potential regression. > > > > > > This patch revert the commit, let's wait for better fix from Shida. > > > > That's a pretty vague commit message for reverting a clear API > > violation that has caused trouble. What is the story here? > > Christoph, you can't call bio_endio() on the same bio twice. You should > know this. Calling a bare bi_end_io function is the correct thing to do > when we're getting called from bio_endio(). Hi Kent, indeed, calling bio_endio() twice is a very bad idea. Nothing in the quoted commit log indicates that is the case, though. If that is the problem it needs to be fixed, but calling ->bi_end_io directly is not the proper fix either. That's eaxtly why I'm asking for the story behind this.