Hello pengdonglin,
Thank you for the patch, looks reasonable and justified.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:47:32PM +0800, pengdonglin wrote:
> From: pengdonglin <pengdong...@xiaomi.com>
>
> Since commit a8bb74acd8efe ("rcu: Consolidate RCU-sched update-side function
> definitions")
> there is no difference between rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh() and
> rcu_read_lock_sched() in terms of RCU read section and the relevant grace
> period. That means that spin_lock(), which implies rcu_read_lock_sched(),
> also implies rcu_read_lock().
>
> There is no need no explicitly start a RCU read section if one has already
> been started implicitly by spin_lock().
>
> Simplify the code and remove the inner rcu_read_lock() invocation.
Reviewed-by: Paul Fertser <fercer...@gmail.com>
