This commit wordsmiths RCU's lockdep.rst. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst index 9308f1bdba05d..2749f43ec1b03 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst @@ -69,9 +69,8 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives: value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL. The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean -expression, but would normally include a lockdep expression. However, -any boolean expression can be used. For a moderately ornate example, -consider the following:: +expression, but would normally include a lockdep expression. For a +moderately ornate example, consider the following:: file = rcu_dereference_check(fdt->fd[fd], lockdep_is_held(&files->file_lock) || @@ -97,10 +96,10 @@ code, it could instead be written as follows:: atomic_read(&files->count) == 1); This would verify cases #2 and #3 above, and furthermore lockdep would -complain if this was used in an RCU read-side critical section unless one -of these two cases held. Because rcu_dereference_protected() omits all -barriers and compiler constraints, it generates better code than do the -other flavors of rcu_dereference(). On the other hand, it is illegal +complain even if this was used in an RCU read-side critical section unless +one of these two cases held. Because rcu_dereference_protected() omits +all barriers and compiler constraints, it generates better code than do +the other flavors of rcu_dereference(). On the other hand, it is illegal to use rcu_dereference_protected() if either the RCU-protected pointer or the RCU-protected data that it points to can change concurrently. -- 2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
