Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:02:05 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Edward Hsieh <edwardh@synology.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        neilb@suse.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, s3t@synology.com,
        bingjingc@synology.com, cccheng@synology.com,
        Wade Liang <wadel@synology.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] block: fix trace completion for chained bio
Message-ID: <YNQt7XtxrFhLhS7E@infradead.org>
References: <20210616030810.4901-1-edwardh@synology.com>
 <YMmDxl9abff+wulm@infradead.org>
 <1204c32a-e3b3-95dd-b2b5-b9f6eef4f022@synology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1204c32a-e3b3-95dd-b2b5-b9f6eef4f022@synology.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:50:30PM +0800, Edward Hsieh wrote:
> We are suggested by Neil Brown in the last version that from the
> comment, the bio_chain_endio handling is used *only* to avoid
> deep recursion so it should be at the end of the function.
> Therefore, the position of blk_throtl_bio_endio() and bio_uninit()
> are a bit odd.

This is BS.  Placement of an else after a returning statement does
not change code generation.

> If it's not necessary then V2 patch should work to fix the
> missing completion traces. Should we resend PATCH V2?

Please send an updated version.