On 17.02.2026 10:47, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/02/2026 8:35 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> wake_up_one() isn't used at all, so violates Misra rule 2.1 (unreachable >> code). wake_up_all() is only used locally, yet rather than making it >> static its sole user can invoke wake_up_nr() in the intended way directly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> >> --- a/xen/common/wait.c >> +++ b/xen/common/wait.c >> @@ -85,11 +85,6 @@ void init_waitqueue_head(struct waitqueu >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->list); >> } >> >> -void destroy_waitqueue_head(struct waitqueue_head *wq) >> -{ >> - wake_up_all(wq); >> -} >> - >> void wake_up_nr(struct waitqueue_head *wq, unsigned int nr) >> { >> struct waitqueue_vcpu *wqv; >> @@ -107,12 +102,7 @@ void wake_up_nr(struct waitqueue_head *w >> spin_unlock(&wq->lock); >> } >> >> -void wake_up_one(struct waitqueue_head *wq) >> -{ >> - wake_up_nr(wq, 1); >> -} >> - >> -void wake_up_all(struct waitqueue_head *wq) >> +void destroy_waitqueue_head(struct waitqueue_head *wq) >> { >> wake_up_nr(wq, UINT_MAX); >> } > > The diff looks wonky because you also moved destroy_waitqueue_head(), > despite wake_up_nr() not being static. > > Keeping destroy_waitqueue_head() in it's old location will make the diff > smaller and more obvious.
The diff size doesn't really change. As to "more obvious" - yes, the deletion of the two functions is more obvious then. The "keep the UINT_MAX use" aspect then becomes less obvious. That's why I did it the way shown. I'm okay doing it the other way, if that eases it making progress. Jan
