On Fri, Mar 10 2017 at 10:07am -0500,
Jack Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

On 10.03.2017 15:55, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 10 2017 at  7:34am -0500,
Lars Ellenberg [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c

@@ -1975,7 +1975,14 @@ generic_make_request_checks(struct bio *bio)
  */
 blk_qc_t generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
 {
-       struct bio_list bio_list_on_stack;
+       /*
+        * bio_list_on_stack[0] contains bios submitted by the current
+        * make_request_fn.
+        * bio_list_on_stack[1] contains bios that were submitted before
+        * the current make_request_fn, but that haven't been processed
+        * yet.
+        */
+       struct bio_list bio_list_on_stack[2];
        blk_qc_t ret = BLK_QC_T_NONE;

May I suggest that, if you intend to assign something that is not a
plain &(struct bio_list), but a &(struct bio_list[2]),
you change the task member so it is renamed (current->bio_list vs
current->bio_lists, plural, is what I did last year).
Or you will break external modules, silently, and horribly (or,
rather, they won't notice, but break the kernel).
Examples of such modules would be DRBD, ZFS, quite possibly others.

drbd is upstream -- so what is the problem?  (if you are having to
distribute drbd independent of the upstream drbd then why is drbd
upstream?)

As for ZFS, worrying about ZFS kABI breakage is the last thing we should
be doing.

It's better to make external modules not compile than to silently 
introduce bugs in them. So yes, I would rename that.

Mikulas

Agree, better rename current->bio_list to current->bio_lists

Fine, normally wouldn't do so but I'm not so opposed that we need to get
hung up on this detail.  If Neil and Jens agree then so be it.