From: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:52:21 +0800
Subject: net/smc: Add comment for smc_tx_pending
Patch-mainline: v5.18-rc1
Git-commit: 2e13bde1315373cf7e9fb7dc4330d0d2a6bd5417
References: jsc#PED-612

The previous patch introduces a lock-free version of smc_tx_work() to
solve unnecessary lock contention, which is expected to be held lock.
So this adds comment to remind people to keep an eye out for locks.

Suggested-by: Stefan Raspl <raspl@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Acked-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@suse.com>
---
 net/smc/smc_tx.c |    7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/net/smc/smc_tx.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_tx.c
@@ -611,6 +611,10 @@ int smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty(struct smc_co
 	return rc;
 }
 
+/* Wakeup sndbuf consumers from process context
+ * since there is more data to transmit. The caller
+ * must hold sock lock.
+ */
 void smc_tx_pending(struct smc_connection *conn)
 {
 	struct smc_sock *smc = container_of(conn, struct smc_sock, conn);
@@ -626,7 +630,8 @@ void smc_tx_pending(struct smc_connectio
 }
 
 /* Wakeup sndbuf consumers from process context
- * since there is more data to transmit
+ * since there is more data to transmit in locked
+ * sock.
  */
 void smc_tx_work(struct work_struct *work)
 {