On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 03:29:18PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
From: Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
vhost_test_flush_vq() just a simple wrapper around vhost_work_dev_flush()
which seems have no value. It's just easier to call vhost_work_dev_flush()
directly. Besides there is no point in obtaining vhost_dev pointer
via 'n->vqs[index].poll.dev' while we can just use &n->dev.
It's the same pointers, see vhost_test_open()/vhost_dev_init().
Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/vhost/test.c | 11 +++--------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/test.c b/drivers/vhost/test.c
index f0ac9e35f5d6..837148d0a6a8 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/test.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/test.c
@@ -144,14 +144,9 @@ static void vhost_test_stop(struct vhost_test *n, void **privatep)
*privatep = vhost_test_stop_vq(n, n->vqs + VHOST_TEST_VQ);
}
-static void vhost_test_flush_vq(struct vhost_test *n, int index)
-{
- vhost_work_dev_flush(n->vqs[index].poll.dev);
-}
-
static void vhost_test_flush(struct vhost_test *n)
{
- vhost_test_flush_vq(n, VHOST_TEST_VQ);
+ vhost_work_dev_flush(&n->dev);
}
static int vhost_test_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
@@ -210,7 +205,7 @@ static long vhost_test_run(struct vhost_test *n, int test)
goto err;
if (oldpriv) {
- vhost_test_flush_vq(n, index);
+ vhost_test_flush(n, index);
^
Should we remove the `index` parameter?
}
}
@@ -303,7 +298,7 @@ static long vhost_test_set_backend(struct vhost_test *n, unsigned index, int fd)
mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
if (enable) {
- vhost_test_flush_vq(n, index);
+ vhost_test_flush(n);
}
mutex_unlock(&n->dev.mutex);
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
