The ITS collection is guranteed to be !NULL when update_affinity_collection()
is called. So we needn't check ITE's collection with NULL because the
check has been included to the later one.

Remove the duplicate check in update_affinity_collection().

Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
index 9d3299a70242..24d7778d1ce6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void update_affinity_collection(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
 	struct its_ite *ite;
 
 	for_each_lpi_its(device, ite, its) {
-		if (!ite->collection || coll != ite->collection)
+		if (ite->collection != coll)
 			continue;
 
 		update_affinity_ite(kvm, ite);
-- 
2.23.0

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:54:47 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> The ITS collection is guranteed to be !NULL when update_affinity_collection()
> is called. So we needn't check ITE's collection with NULL because the
> check has been included to the later one.
> 
> Remove the duplicate check in update_affinity_collection().

Applied to next, thanks!

[1/1] KVM: arm64: vgic: Remove duplicate check in update_affinity_collection()
      commit: 096560dd13251e351176aef54b7aee91c99920a3

Cheers,

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Gavin,

Side note: please make sure you always Cc all the KVM/arm64 reviewers
when sending patches (now added).

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 07:54:47 +0100,
Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> The ITS collection is guranteed to be !NULL when update_affinity_collection()
> is called. So we needn't check ITE's collection with NULL because the
> check has been included to the later one.

It took me a while to understand what you meant by this: the 'coll'
parameter to update_affinity_collection() is never NULL, so comparing
it with 'ite->collection' is enough to cover both the NULL case and
the "another collection" case.

If you agree with this, I can directly fix the commit message when
applying the patch.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Hi Marc,

On 9/24/22 9:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Side note: please make sure you always Cc all the KVM/arm64 reviewers
> when sending patches (now added).
> 

Sure. The reason, why I didn't run './scripts/get_maintainer.pl' to get
all reviewers, is the patch is super simple one :)

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 07:54:47 +0100,
> Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The ITS collection is guranteed to be !NULL when update_affinity_collection()
>> is called. So we needn't check ITE's collection with NULL because the
>> check has been included to the later one.
> 
> It took me a while to understand what you meant by this: the 'coll'
> parameter to update_affinity_collection() is never NULL, so comparing
> it with 'ite->collection' is enough to cover both the NULL case and
> the "another collection" case.
> 
> If you agree with this, I can directly fix the commit message when
> applying the patch.
> 

Yes, the commit message is accurate and correct. Please help to apply
your commit message directly :)

Thanks,
Gavin

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:21:08 +0100,
Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 9/24/22 9:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Side note: please make sure you always Cc all the KVM/arm64 reviewers
> > when sending patches (now added).
> > 
> 
> Sure. The reason, why I didn't run './scripts/get_maintainer.pl' to get
> all reviewers, is the patch is super simple one :)

Sure, but the whole point of having multiple reviewers is to share the
review load. If you only send it to a reduced number of them, you are
defeating this process (although this is more wishful thinking than a
process...).

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.