i ran coccinelle on the original code before the patch with this rule to see if it would spot any other missing changes. linux git:(c2ee070fb003) cat pa

i ran coccinelle on the original code before the patch with this rule to see if it would spot any other missing changes. linux git:(c2ee070fb003) cat patch.coci @@ expression lhs; expression rhs; @@ - lhs->bi_bdev = rhs; + bio_set_dev(bio, rhs); so it spotted the original missing bi_partno = in the same file. diff -u -p a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c --- a/block/bio.c +++ b/block/bio.c @@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ void __bio_clone_fast(struct bio *bio, s * most users will be overriding ->bi_bdev with a new target, * so we don't set nor calculate new physical/hw segment counts here */ - bio->bi_bdev = bio_src->bi_bdev; + bio_set_dev(bio, bio_src->bi_bdev); bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_CLONED); bio->bi_opf = bio_src->bi_opf; bio->bi_write_hint = bio_src->bi_write_hint; @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ struct bio *bio_clone_bioset(struct bio bio = bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_mask, bio_segments(bio_src), bs); if (!bio) return NULL; - bio->bi_bdev = bio_src->bi_bdev; + bio_set_dev(bio, bio_src->bi_bdev); bio->bi_opf = bio_src->bi_opf; bio->bi_write_hint = bio_src->bi_write_hint; bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bio_src->bi_iter.bi_sector; but it also spotted a missing assignment in the same file in the bio_clone_bioset function. i don't know enough about this functionality to know if the assignment is meant to be here as well. also, considering it is in the same file i would have thought if it was necessary it would have been noticed in the last patch. just thought i would let someone else who would have a better idea about how this works know. i also haven't checked the rest of the coccinelle output. i know it has generated a lot of _wrong_ code. like the actual patch looks like it has done something more intelligent than what coccinelle blindly did.