On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 06:33, tip-bot2 for Uros Bizjak
<tip-bot2@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Use try_cmpxchg_acquire(*ptr, &old, new) instead of
> cmpxchg_relaxed(*ptr, old, new) == old in trylock_clear_pending().

The above commit message is horribly confusing and wrong.

I was going "that's not right", because it says "use acquire instead
of relaxed" memory ordering, and then goes on to say "No functional
change intended".

But it turns out the *code* was always acquire, and it's only the
commit message that is wrong, presumably due to a bit too much
cut-and-paste.

But please fix the commit message, and use the right memory ordering
in the explanations too.

            Linus