Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
To:     <paolo.valente@linaro.org>, <axboe@kernel.dk>
CC:     <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <shikemeng@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH 14/20] block, bfq: remove redundant oom_bfqq check for bfqq from bfq_find_close_cooperator
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 17:34:11 +0800
Message-ID: <20221101093417.10540-15-shikemeng@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221101093417.10540-1-shikemeng@huawei.com>
References: <20221101093417.10540-1-shikemeng@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

The oom_bfqq is never added to tree in bfq_pos_tree_add_move, so bfqq
returned from bfq_find_close_cooperator is no need to be checked if it's
oom_bfqq.

Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index b8af0bb98d66..776951156fbc 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -3014,8 +3014,7 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 	new_bfqq = bfq_find_close_cooperator(bfqd, bfqq,
 			bfq_io_struct_pos(io_struct, request));
 
-	if (new_bfqq && likely(new_bfqq != &bfqd->oom_bfqq) &&
-	    bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, new_bfqq))
+	if (new_bfqq && bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, new_bfqq))
 		return bfq_setup_merge(bfqq, new_bfqq);
 
 	return NULL;
-- 
2.30.0