An out-of-nowhere comment is removed. While at it, add more explanatory
comments. Such a trivial patch!
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuy...@gmail.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index dcff644..250ba64 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2717,10 +2717,16 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
* - is softirq-safe, if this lock is hardirq-unsafe
*
* And check whether the new lock's dependency graph
- * could lead back to the previous lock.
+ * could lead back to the previous lock:
*
- * any of these scenarios could lead to a deadlock. If
- * All validations
+ * - within the current held-lock stack
+ * - across our accumulated lock dependency records
+ *
+ * any of these scenarios could lead to a deadlock.
+ */
+ /*
+ * The simple case: does the current hold the same lock
+ * already?
*/
int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock, hlock->read);
--
1.8.3.1
