It adds little clarity and there is a single user of such helper,
just inline it in the caller.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
---
  - v4 -> v5:
    split out of main backlog patch, to make the latter smaller
---
 net/mptcp/protocol.c | 20 ++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
index e354f16f4a79f..05ee6bd26b7fa 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
@@ -838,18 +838,10 @@ static bool move_skbs_to_msk(struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct sock *ssk)
 	return moved;
 }
 
-static void __mptcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk)
-{
-	struct mptcp_sock *msk = mptcp_sk(sk);
-
-	/* Wake-up the reader only for in-sequence data */
-	if (move_skbs_to_msk(msk, ssk) && mptcp_epollin_ready(sk))
-		sk->sk_data_ready(sk);
-}
-
 void mptcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk)
 {
 	struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow = mptcp_subflow_ctx(ssk);
+	struct mptcp_sock *msk = mptcp_sk(sk);
 
 	/* The peer can send data while we are shutting down this
 	 * subflow at msk destruction time, but we must avoid enqueuing
@@ -859,10 +851,14 @@ void mptcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk)
 		return;
 
 	mptcp_data_lock(sk);
-	if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
-		__mptcp_data_ready(sk, ssk);
-	else
+	if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {
+		/* Wake-up the reader only for in-sequence data */
+		if (move_skbs_to_msk(msk, ssk) && mptcp_epollin_ready(sk))
+			sk->sk_data_ready(sk);
+		
+	} else {
 		__set_bit(MPTCP_DEQUEUE, &mptcp_sk(sk)->cb_flags);
+	}
 	mptcp_data_unlock(sk);
 }
 
-- 
2.51.0