Flatten the function. Remove the nested block by inverting the condition:
return early on !timeout.

No functional change intended.

Suggested-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
---
 net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
index 49c6617b467195ba385cc3db86caa4321b422d7a..4425802c5d718f65aaea425ea35886ad64e2fe6e 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
@@ -1194,23 +1194,23 @@ static void virtio_transport_remove_sock(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
 
 static void virtio_transport_wait_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
 {
-	if (timeout) {
-		DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
-		ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
-		struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
+	DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
+	ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
+	struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
 
-		unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
+	if (!timeout)
+		return;
 
-		add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
+	unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
 
-		do {
-			if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0,
-					  &wait))
-				break;
-		} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
+	add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
 
-		remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
-	}
+	do {
+		if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0, &wait))
+			break;
+	} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
+
+	remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
 }
 
 static void virtio_transport_cancel_close_work(struct vsock_sock *vsk,

-- 
2.49.0

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:10:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>Flatten the function. Remove the nested block by inverting the condition:
>return early on !timeout.

IIUC we are removing this function in the next commit, so we can skip 
this patch IMO. I suggested this change, if we didn't move the code in 
the core.

Thanks,
Stefano

>
>No functional change intended.
>
>Suggested-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>index 49c6617b467195ba385cc3db86caa4321b422d7a..4425802c5d718f65aaea425ea35886ad64e2fe6e 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>@@ -1194,23 +1194,23 @@ static void virtio_transport_remove_sock(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>
> static void virtio_transport_wait_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
> {
>-	if (timeout) {
>-		DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
>-		ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
>-		struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
>+	DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
>+	ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
>+	struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
>
>-		unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
>+	if (!timeout)
>+		return;
>
>-		add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>+	unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
>
>-		do {
>-			if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0,
>-					  &wait))
>-				break;
>-		} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
>+	add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>
>-		remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>-	}
>+	do {
>+		if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0, &wait))
>+			break;
>+	} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
>+
>+	remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
> }
>
> static void virtio_transport_cancel_close_work(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>
>-- 
>2.49.0
>

On 4/30/25 11:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:10:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Flatten the function. Remove the nested block by inverting the condition:
>> return early on !timeout.
> 
> IIUC we are removing this function in the next commit, so we can skip 
> this patch IMO. I suggested this change, if we didn't move the code in 
> the core.
Right, I remember your suggestion. Sorry, I'm still a bit uncertain as to
what should and shouldn't be done in a single commit.

Michal

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:30, Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/25 11:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:10:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> >> Flatten the function. Remove the nested block by inverting the condition:
> >> return early on !timeout.
> >
> > IIUC we are removing this function in the next commit, so we can skip
> > this patch IMO. I suggested this change, if we didn't move the code in
> > the core.
> Right, I remember your suggestion. Sorry, I'm still a bit uncertain as to
> what should and shouldn't be done in a single commit.

Sorry for the confusion :-)

The rule I usually follow is this (but may not be the perfect one):
- try to make the fewest changes in a commit, to simplify both
backports, but also for debug/revert/bisection/etc.
- when I move code around and edit it a bit, then it's okay to edit
style, comments, etc.

Thanks,
Stefano