Re: [PATCH 04/12] xfs: remove spurious XBF_DONE clearing on readahead validation failure

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 04:50:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Both callers of ->verify_read already do this, so don't duplicate the
> flag manipulation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Makes sense,
Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>

--D

> ---
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c |  8 +++-----
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> index bbada0d3cc08..4736f66e2a9a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> @@ -252,8 +252,8 @@ xfs_dquot_buf_read_verify(
>  /*
>   * readahead errors are silent and simply leave the buffer as !done so a real
>   * read will then be run with the xfs_dquot_buf_ops verifier. See
> - * xfs_inode_buf_verify() for why we use EIO and ~XBF_DONE here rather than
> - * reporting the failure.
> + * xfs_inode_buf_verify() for why we use EIO here rather than reporting the
> + * failure.
>   */
>  static void
>  xfs_dquot_buf_readahead_verify(
> @@ -262,10 +262,8 @@ xfs_dquot_buf_readahead_verify(
>  	struct xfs_mount	*mp = bp->b_mount;
>  
>  	if (!xfs_dquot_buf_verify_crc(mp, bp, true) ||
> -	    xfs_dquot_buf_verify(mp, bp, true) != NULL) {
> +	    xfs_dquot_buf_verify(mp, bp, true) != NULL)
>  		xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EIO);
> -		bp->b_flags &= ~XBF_DONE;
> -	}
>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> index 336ef843f2fe..e4c3f7b24e95 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> @@ -29,12 +29,14 @@
>   * has not had the inode cores stamped into it. Hence for readahead, the buffer
>   * may be potentially invalid.
>   *
> - * If the readahead buffer is invalid, we need to mark it with an error and
> - * clear the DONE status of the buffer so that a followup read will re-read it
> - * from disk. We don't report the error otherwise to avoid warnings during log
> - * recovery and we don't get unnecessary panics on debug kernels. We use EIO here
> - * because all we want to do is say readahead failed; there is no-one to report
> - * the error to, so this will distinguish it from a non-ra verifier failure.
> + * If the readahead buffer is invalid, we need to mark it with an error so that a
> + * followup read will re-read it from disk.
> + *
> + * We don't report the error otherwise to avoid warnings during log recovery and
> + * we don't get unnecessary panics on debug kernels.  Use EIO here because all
> + * we want to do is say readahead failed; there is no-one to report the error
> + * to, so this will distinguish it from a non-ra verifier failure.
> + *
>   * Changes to this readahead error behaviour also need to be reflected in
>   * xfs_dquot_buf_readahead_verify().
>   */
> @@ -64,7 +66,6 @@ xfs_inode_buf_verify(
>  		if (unlikely(!di_ok ||
>  				XFS_TEST_ERROR(mp, XFS_ERRTAG_ITOBP_INOTOBP))) {
>  			if (readahead) {
> -				bp->b_flags &= ~XBF_DONE;
>  				xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EIO);
>  				return;
>  			}
> -- 
> 2.53.0
> 
>