Re: [RFC 06/12] bio: don't check target->bi_status on error

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 12:20:07PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > I still don't understand what you're saying here at all, or what this is
> > trying to fix or optimize.
> 
> When we have this construct in the code and we know that status is not 0:
> 
>   if (!bio->bi_status)
>     bio->bi_status = status;
> 
> we can just do this instead:
> 
>   bio>bi_status = status;

But this now overrides the previous status instead of preserving the
first error?