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 C9255328635; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 17:18:24 +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=1791739105; cv=none; b=BUJu7/XcZUz9NiW3tEzjz4Tk8ZCUe3eTI6w/XVjYoJC8d9/GQhB3F/KG/o+MnkMLo5lG/whlb/NYlNkTIEcG+wWVEsjaYh/jkVzCA3G+5E31z3fj0PBpkanDmcVlG0hCPtKfnTB1RK02OJbThTVbO+UVyom1Gr6MOBLbqWW2gq0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791739105; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UYTbdUwAbo2wEhYq5RzyzKCuI5y/Swm24Oj9PAYf0L4=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=RxW+eyKKXWkiADnenaRc7m546vAZFiedNQ0dhbRxLtz0INQp/h1Z4dHhknlmPEFnHThTH7jAgl+Ad5uY7KNfw1bgcYW92cm7zLSVeQv6QLfti6YQrt3dmZQPSZjGJg4DvGtq4fPQEAnRMLRpi/8PyfCvD6qPvbB1HUOAIxYZIhw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=CdH2lUQF; 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="CdH2lUQF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7918D1F0089B; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 17:18:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791739104; bh=UYTbdUwAbo2wEhYq5RzyzKCuI5y/Swm24Oj9PAYf0L4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=CdH2lUQFa8fdQmmHmekE8QAQhwxQ21FwQLQVv+Z54H1kO7dRDRCEtRb/s2orhai3m PnrbV7eqhsYkQecy3pzeFOe+MDCs5FROU7jQG6yZbBwW/7agutbk3UxI3Y8NUTky0e WNwpARkYwT3zlxIZjV4qcr+ayZIv7/FYgrn1fJ9NwOoaSQ1hbsu/XQ/4GwxlgHZpn4 THiAedFueCBgtNY+A6ZqJva6fDwt/SRnmBk+KxO+YnB60p7eNp+LDA4rBWzyFsG152 H5kzzejQ53xPy7hiHTZAAPLvMPLDa20g+QpcCUzTZSdY7J4j0bVCfWFX4hhPIdvInh CUZTTqZWN5B7w== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] block: warn about bios that can't be split Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Baokun Li" Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261011170958.1759230-10-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20261011170958.1759230-1-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com> <20261011170958.1759230-10-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 17:18:24 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > bio_split_io_at() fails a bio that it can't split into a valid request > with -EINVAL: a bio may have too many discontiguous segments for the > queue, may have virtual boundary gaps that leave it without a block > sized split, and now that the split size is rounded down to the data > unit size of an encryption context, it may have a data unit that does > not fit in the room that the queue limits leave for the split. >=20 > Nothing else says which queue limit caused the failure, and a limit that > is smaller than the data unit size, e.g. a max_sectors_kb that was > lowered below it, is accepted by the block layer, so warn about it, with > the bytes that fit and the alignment involved. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261011170958.1759= 230-1-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com?part=3D9