[PATCH tip/core/rcu 8/9] doc: Emphasize that "toy" RCU requires recursive rwlock

[Paul E. McKenney]

Reported-by: "yangzc@xxxxxxxxxx" <yangzc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
index 6b0337008f9c..8c131a1c62ea 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -562,7 +562,9 @@ This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
 familiar locking primitives.  Its overhead makes it a non-starter for
 real-life use, as does its lack of scalability.  It is also unsuitable
 for realtime use, since it allows scheduling latency to "bleed" from
-one read-side critical section to another.
+one read-side critical section to another.  It also assumes recursive
+reader-writer locks:  If you try this with non-recursive locks, and
+you allow nested rcu_read_lock() calls, you can deadlock.
 
 However, it is probably the easiest implementation to relate to, so is
 a good starting point.
-- 
2.5.2