linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/2] include/asm-generic: Remove spin_is

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed,  9 Jan 2019 14:21:43 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/2] include/asm-generic: Remove spin_is_locked() comment

The WARN_ON_SMP() comment header suggests using spin_is_locked() to
check for locks being held.  But these days we prefer lockdep_assert_held(),
so this commit removes that suggestion.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
---
 include/asm-generic/bug.h | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
index 20561a60db9c..0e9bd9c83870 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
@@ -211,9 +211,6 @@ void __warn(const char *file, int line, void *caller, unsigned taint,
 /*
  * WARN_ON_SMP() is for cases that the warning is either
  * meaningless for !SMP or may even cause failures.
- * This is usually used for cases that we have
- * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as spin_is_locked()
- * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings.
  * It can also be used with values that are only defined
  * on SMP:
  *
-- 
2.17.1