summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/RCU
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>2022-11-04 10:53:25 -0700
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>2023-01-03 17:27:37 -0800
commit438500113f375c0b3185cc7ce62baa5f8088a5b2 (patch)
tree9a4b93ec7b78858a08fd62a537273700442e6b04 /Documentation/RCU
parent1b929c02afd37871d5afb9d498426f83432e71c2 (diff)
doc: Further updates to RCU's lockdep.rst
This commit wordsmiths RCU's lockdep.rst. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst13
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
index 9308f1bdba05..2749f43ec1b0 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.