I was reading the mcs_spinlock code today and I noticed a comment that didn't appear to match the code. This appears to have just been an oversight during some restructuring of the mcs_spinlock code where this function was made inline but the comment wasn't updated.
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> --- kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h index a2dbac4..f4e94af 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h @@ -56,9 +56,6 @@ do { \ * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked * in mcs_spin_unlock(). - * - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the - * time spent in this lock function. */ static inline void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) -- 1.8.3.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/