On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:15:15 +0100 Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The existing wording implies that the use of spin_unlock whilst irqs are > disabled might trigger a reschedule. However the preemptible() test in > preempt_schedule will prevent a reschedule if irqs are disabled. > > Lets improve the clarity of this wording to change the example from > spin_unlock to cond_resched() and cond_resched_lock() as these are > functions that will trigger a reschedule if the preempt count is 0 without > testing that irqs are disabled. > > Also remove the 'Last Updated' line as this is not up to date and better > tracked via GIT. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx> I've applied this, but that document is ... old. It sure would be nice if somebody found the energy to write a proper locking document for current kernels...:) Thanks, jon
