[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180525090507.22248-2-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:05:06 +0200
From: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] rcu: Update documentation of rcu_read_unlock()
Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the
explanation in rcu_read_unlock() documentation about irq unsafe rtmutex
wait_lock is no longer valid.
Remove it to prevent kernel developers reading the documentation to rely on
it.
Suggested-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
---
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 36360d07f25b..64644fda3b22 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -653,9 +653,7 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
* Unfortunately, this function acquires the scheduler's runqueue and
* priority-inheritance spinlocks. This means that deadlock could result
* if the caller of rcu_read_unlock() already holds one of these locks or
- * any lock that is ever acquired while holding them; or any lock which
- * can be taken from interrupt context because rcu_boost()->rt_mutex_lock()
- * does not disable irqs while taking ->wait_lock.
+ * any lock that is ever acquired while holding them.
*
* That said, RCU readers are never priority boosted unless they were
* preempted. Therefore, one way to avoid deadlock is to make sure
--
2.15.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists