p71924506
/
linux_old1
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

locks: remove misleading obsolete comment 

The spinlock handling in this file has changed significantly since this
comment was written, and the file_lock_lock is no more. In addition,
this overall comment no longer applies. Deleting an entry now requires
both locks.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Jeff Layton 2018-08-08 12:54:09 -04:00
parent 96c25b7774
commit da33a871ba
1 changed files with 0 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
fs/locks.c
View File

@ -202,10 +202,6 @@ static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(blocked_hash, BLOCKED_HASH_BITS);
* we often hold the flc_lock as well. In certain cases, when reading the fields
* protected by this lock, we can skip acquiring it iff we already hold the
* flc_lock.
*
* In particular, adding an entry to the fl_block list requires that you hold
* both the flc_lock and the blocked_lock_lock (acquired in that order).
* Deleting an entry from the list however only requires the file_lock_lock.
*/
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(blocked_lock_lock);