We have two separate sections that talk about why list_empty_rcu() is not needed, consolidate them. Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/rculist.h | 15 ++++++--------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h index f8633d37e358..f8f42ce04382 100644 --- a/include/linux/rculist.h +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h @@ -10,15 +10,6 @@ #include <linux/list.h> #include <linux/rcupdate.h> -/* - * Why is there no list_empty_rcu()? Because list_empty() serves this - * purpose. The list_empty() function fetches the RCU-protected pointer - * and compares it to the address of the list head, but neither dereferences - * this pointer itself nor provides this pointer to the caller. Therefore, - * it is not necessary to use rcu_dereference(), so that list_empty() can - * be used anywhere you would want to use a list_empty_rcu(). - */ - /* * INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU - Initialize a list_head visible to RCU readers * @list: list to be initialized @@ -334,6 +325,12 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list, * list_first_entry() because they would be protected by a lock that blocks * writers. * + * list_empty() fetches the RCU-protected pointer and compares it to the address + * of the list head. But it neither dereferences this pointer itself, nor + * provides this pointer to the caller. Therefore it is not necessary to use + * rcu_dereference(), and list_empty() can be used anywhere you would want to + * use a list_empty_rcu(). + * * See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative. */ -- 2.25.1
