On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:15:15 +0100
Andrew Murray wrote:
> The existing wording implies that the use of spin_unlock whilst irqs are
> disabled might trigger a reschedule. However the preemptible() test in
> preempt_schedule will prevent a reschedule if irqs are disabled.
>
> Lets improve the clar
The existing wording implies that the use of spin_unlock whilst irqs are
disabled might trigger a reschedule. However the preemptible() test in
preempt_schedule will prevent a reschedule if irqs are disabled.
Lets improve the clarity of this wording to change the example from
spin_unlock to cond_r
