[PATCH 3/5] vPCI/MSI-X: fold clearing of entry->updated

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

Both call sites clear the flag after a successfull call to
update_entry(). This can be simplified by moving the clearing into the
function, onto its success path.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
---
As a result it becomes clear that the return value of the function is of
no interest to either of the callers. I'm not sure whether ditching it
is the right thing to do, or whether this rather hints at some problem.

--- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c
@@ -64,6 +64,8 @@ static int update_entry(struct vpci_msix
         return rc;
     }
 
+    entry->updated = false;
+
     return 0;
 }
 
@@ -92,13 +94,8 @@ static void control_write(const struct p
     if ( new_enabled && !new_masked && (!msix->enabled || msix->masked) )
     {
         for ( i = 0; i < msix->max_entries; i++ )
-        {
-            if ( msix->entries[i].masked || !msix->entries[i].updated ||
-                 update_entry(&msix->entries[i], pdev, i) )
-                continue;
-
-            msix->entries[i].updated = false;
-        }
+            if ( !msix->entries[i].masked && msix->entries[i].updated )
+                update_entry(&msix->entries[i], pdev, i);
     }
     else if ( !new_enabled && msix->enabled )
     {
@@ -365,10 +362,7 @@ static int msix_write(struct vcpu *v, un
              * data fields Xen needs to disable and enable the entry in order
              * to pick up the changes.
              */
-            if ( update_entry(entry, pdev, vmsix_entry_nr(msix, entry)) )
-                break;
-
-            entry->updated = false;
+            update_entry(entry, pdev, vmsix_entry_nr(msix, entry));
         }
         else
             vpci_msix_arch_mask_entry(entry, pdev, entry->masked);