On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 5:22 AM Hanjun Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2025/9/16 12:47, pengdonglin wrote: > > From: pengdonglin <[email protected]> > > > > 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. > > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tony Luck <[email protected]> > > Cc: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: pengdonglin <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: pengdonglin <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c > > index a0d54993edb3..97ee19f2cae0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c > > @@ -1207,12 +1207,10 @@ static int ghes_notify_hed(struct notifier_block > > *this, unsigned long event, > > 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; > > Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
Applied as 6.18 material, thanks!
