locks: remove misleading obsolete comment

The spinlock handling in this file has changed significantly since this
comment was written, and the file_lock_lock is no more. In addition,
this overall comment no longer applies. Deleting an entry now requires
both locks.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 6138a9bcd9240f513ea5cbc7e3e2c1aeae230295..11a4d698aba8f8e7c694ce51a8356495287ae26b 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -202,10 +202,6 @@ static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(blocked_hash, BLOCKED_HASH_BITS);
  * we often hold the flc_lock as well. In certain cases, when reading the fields
  * protected by this lock, we can skip acquiring it iff we already hold the
  * flc_lock.
- *
- * In particular, adding an entry to the fl_block list requires that you hold
- * both the flc_lock and the blocked_lock_lock (acquired in that order).
- * Deleting an entry from the list however only requires the file_lock_lock.
  */
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(blocked_lock_lock);