From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 908BF3C4B83; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786362941; cv=none; b=JP+UfyLlYBdRCLT6WGWz7+GP2QtWxHUMFQfDln5oZgtNLqmH9JNBybZ5DPJgTClcsvX6SxY2nsIpzTlMZ+x5mBdYE2/TKmCc+IJycFJTjIzliwoLmNlh/m6mpjmsZohKpMJKpvaBrvWsi8Tn8Z4ZoXTqdCBNXHIbqJr3Rl4T4Ko= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786362941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=X547GRv+kEQlP3B3wk9EjVBJHhYoMcVOke7t5SDxAcs=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Message-Id:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jV3n1l3fG/6/JLxWh0W1Lts81oRzd4b6CADAFQw7zB9BgsyBA5E8d+zi52gYHtdNh5Ib/8w/dU4uyD4Qo9xdRL0Cr7v+nfWV0J4gdIkEyfJBEGEIGfJESr4OMj2z5R/1MVVcnbY5xoRhdyw9rOVgsveysY+AVXFlbip94/8RNE0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SIsjLw5S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SIsjLw5S" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 093B11F00A3A; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:55:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786362940; bh=50wbtiDm3Yk6Q1jNFUXLy8l/QcUP5h+A9AZye7m3aSM=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date; b=SIsjLw5SpoXxqPVmYT94EXXmzfUo+fU/PWHEiv8q1F8twBEvGL1ggqcn+iHxeqeY3 KPA7JUVVY9soDpqArdXYWO09fLxZycYt7Aqwcg13vKHb2hvZXAKzpIN+m2ObhEBkih SayNXJPUt8wdmK23ck6evP6ou+DtFYNacRgyEJaXELTY5ihzxOgjFg4fKl9iBk3D8H k2geGHfXQN/zkEaGZTVPMZ49Z+ojt9jmCQQOK4KCdMjg+e4EMuNLWnIGdOUt7j+ayX rqan+BGDUWOFm8d4FW4PfRDj/+M7c3KUjFzFCn0cTc1Pra0ykCxR/YoD304s+by3oi mUHnhriaVTlzg== From: Carlos Maiolino To: djwong@kernel.org, hans.holmberg@wdc.com, Hongling Zeng Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhongling0719@126.com In-Reply-To: <20260729073418.63750-1-zenghongling@kylinos.cn> References: <20260729073418.63750-1-zenghongling@kylinos.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: check split_sectors validity before bio_split call Message-Id: <178636293868.58486.7369738774331223350.b4-ty@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:55:38 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: b4 0.14.3 On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:34:18 +0800, Hongling Zeng wrote: > Change the split_sectors check from !split_sectors to split_sectors <= 0 > to make the error handling explicit. While bio_split_rw_at() cannot return > a negative error code for the current GC I/O path (GC I/O doesn't use > REQ_ATOMIC/REQ_NOWAIT flags and has proper alignment), making the check > explicit improves code clarity and makes the intent clear. > > This also makes the code more robust for future maintenance if different > I/O patterns are introduced. > > [...] Applied to for-next, thanks! [1/1] xfs: check split_sectors validity before bio_split call commit: 6e6a31401445556b58ab9517e256285989be73da Best regards, -- Carlos Maiolino