From be3e7844980352756de4261b276ee2ba5be7a26b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:45:21 +0200
Subject: locking/spinlock: Update spin_unlock_wait() users

With the modified semantics of spin_unlock_wait() a number of
explicit barriers can be removed. Also update the comment for the
do_exit() usecase, as that was somewhat stale/obscure.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/task_work.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'kernel/task_work.c')

diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index 53fa971d000d..6ab4842b00e8 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ void task_work_run(void)
 		 * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
 		 */
 		raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
-		smp_mb();
 
 		do {
 			next = work->next;
-- 
cgit v1.2.3