From e20077f410854c00251146da99ecc546cc899703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:12:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 018/518] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment

The protection of a hrtimer which runs its callback against migration to a
different CPU has nothing to do with hard interrupt context.

The protection against migration of a hrtimer running the expiry callback
is the pointer in the cpu_base which holds a pointer to the currently
running timer. This pointer is evaluated in the code which potentially
switches the timer base and makes sure it's kept on the CPU on which the
callback is running.

Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index f1e16c75b8861..738c6e245b9a6 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -1207,9 +1207,9 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base,
 		timer->is_rel = false;
 
 	/*
-	 * Because we run timers from hardirq context, there is no chance
-	 * they get migrated to another cpu, therefore its safe to unlock
-	 * the timer base.
+	 * The timer is marked as running in the cpu base, so it is
+	 * protected against migration to a different CPU even if the lock
+	 * is dropped.
 	 */
 	raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock);
 	trace_hrtimer_expire_entry(timer, now);
-- 
2.41.0

