[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210602111655.3808580-2-jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:16:55 +0200
From: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH wq/for-next 2/2] workqueue: clean up for_each_pwq()'s documentation
The if/else clause was removed with commit 5a6446626d7e
("workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check").
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 8a700ccfa313..104e3ef04e33 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -418,9 +418,6 @@ static void show_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq);
* This must be called either with wq->mutex held or RCU read locked.
* If the pwq needs to be used beyond the locking in effect, the caller is
* responsible for guaranteeing that the pwq stays online.
- *
- * The if/else clause exists only for the lockdep assertion and can be
- * ignored.
*/
#define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) \
list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node, \
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists