From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:26:06 +0000 (+0200) Subject: locking/rtmutex: Fix misleading comment X-Git-Url: https://www.infradead.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d12b802f183667d4c28589314c99c380a458d57e;p=users%2Fwilly%2Flinux.git 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: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241008092606.GJ33184@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net --- diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c index a6974d044593..7e79258feb27 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c @@ -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);