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.
Signed-off-by: pengdonglin <pengdonglin@xiaomi.com>
Signed-off-by: pengdonglin <dolinux.peng@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250916044735.2316171-2-dolinux.peng@gmail.com
[ rjw: Subject adjustment ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
spin_lock_irqsave(&ghes_notify_lock_irq, flags);
- rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ghes, &ghes_hed, list) {
if (!ghes_proc(ghes))
ret = NOTIFY_OK;
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ghes_notify_lock_irq, flags);
return ret;