Hi, 在 2026/8/4 21:25, Christoph Hellwig 写道: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 12:52:16PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> Mostly looks good. Just I think bio_blkcg() should gracefully handle the >> case where bio->bi_blkg is NULL (and return NULL in that case). That way >> you can also get rid of somewhat odd pattern: >> >> if (!bio_blkg(bio)) >> return ...; >> do something with bio_blkcg(bio) >> >> You can then just check bio_blkcg(bio) directly which is much more obvious. > Yes. Looking at the whole series I'm also not sure that this makes too > much sense as a split out patch as the next one touches more than half > of the callsite anyway.
Yes, this make sense, I'm trying not to cook a huge patch, but patch 2 is grow much bigger than I was expected. Unless I figure out a nicer way to split patch 2, I'll merge them in the next version. > -- Thanks, Kuai
