From 3df37e0c78c3d5139c963a74eda56c331355ef72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:37:56 +0100
Subject: doc: clarify that LOCK() does AssertLockNotHeld() internally

Constructs like

```cpp
AssertLockNotHeld(m);
LOCK(m);
```

are equivalent to

```cpp
LOCK(m);
```

for non-recursive mutexes, so it is ok to omit `AssertLockNotHeld()` in
such cases.
---
 doc/developer-notes.md | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'doc/developer-notes.md')

diff --git a/doc/developer-notes.md b/doc/developer-notes.md
index e2e54e13d3..d41543ab1c 100644
--- a/doc/developer-notes.md
+++ b/doc/developer-notes.md
@@ -941,7 +941,9 @@ Threads and synchronization
     internal to a class (private or protected) rather than public.
 
   - Combine annotations in function declarations with run-time asserts in
-    function definitions:
+    function definitions (`AssertLockNotHeld()` can be omitted if `LOCK()` is
+    called unconditionally after it because `LOCK()` does the same check as
+    `AssertLockNotHeld()` internally, for non-recursive mutexes):
 
 ```C++
 // txmempool.h
-- 
cgit v1.2.3