[RFC tip/locking v2 06/13] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change

As we have four kinds of dependencies now, check_redundant() should only report redundant if we have a dependency path which is equal or _stronger_ than the current dependency. For example if check_prev_add() we have: prev->read == 2 && next->read != 2 , we should only report redundant

[RFC tip/locking v2 06/13] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change

As we have four kinds of dependencies now, check_redundant() should only report redundant if we have a dependency path which is equal or _stronger_ than the current dependency. For example if check_prev_add() we have: prev->read == 2 && next->read != 2 , we should only report redundant