From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0154C636D7 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234007AbjBUOb3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:31:29 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52566 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233600AbjBUOb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:31:28 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC1BE29424 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 06:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 243B968AFE; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:31:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:31:21 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Qu Wenruo Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] btrfs: remove a bogus submit_one_bio call in read_extent_buffer_subpage Message-ID: <20230221143121.GB29949@lst.de> References: <20230216163437.2370948-1-hch@lst.de> <20230216163437.2370948-3-hch@lst.de> <6754b78a-ee58-9054-1494-335f062dd620@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6754b78a-ee58-9054-1494-335f062dd620@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 07:14:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2023/2/17 00:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> The first call to submit_one_bio call in read_extent_buffer_subpage is >> for a btrfs_bio_ctrl structure that has just been initialized and thus >> can't have a non-NULL bio, so remove it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > This new submit_one_bio() is mostly caused by the previous patch. > > Can we just fold this one into the previous patch? I don't think mixing a change in behavior (even if it is a no-op for the I/O pattern) into a pure refactoring is a good idea. I've been arguing about doing this patch first before patch 1 as I've been expecting this argument, but the current order seems more obvious to review. I could switch it around if strongly preferred.