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?
