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. ~Andrew
