Commit d12b802f authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Thomas Gleixner
Browse files

locking/rtmutex: Fix misleading comment 



Going through the RCU-boost and rtmutex code, I ran into this utterly
confusing comment. Fix it to avoid confusing future readers.

[ tglx: Wordsmithed the comment ]

Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: default avatarSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241008092606.GJ33184@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
parent 77abd3b7

kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c

+4 −4
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -175,10 +175,10 @@ bool __sched __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock, 
	}



	/*

	 * We've already deboosted, mark_wakeup_next_waiter() will

	 * retain preempt_disabled when we drop the wait_lock, to

	 * avoid inversion prior to the wakeup.  preempt_disable()

	 * therein pairs with rt_mutex_postunlock().

	 * mark_wakeup_next_waiter() deboosts and retains preemption

	 * disabled when dropping the wait_lock, to avoid inversion prior

	 * to the wakeup.  preempt_disable() therein pairs with the

	 * preempt_enable() in rt_mutex_postunlock().

	 */

	mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wqh, lock);