It could be clarified better why rcu_read_lock_sched is better than using preempt_disable, add the same. Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt index 49747717d905..8860ab2a897a 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(), rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock. Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but - is less readable. + is less readable and prevents lockdep from detecting locking issues. Letting RCU-protected pointers "leak" out of an RCU read-side critical section is every bid as bad as letting them leak out -- 2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
