There is still considerable confusion as to the semantics of
spin_unlock_wait(), but there seems to be universal agreement that
it is not that of a lock/unlock pair. This commit therefore removes
the comment added by 6016ffc387 ("atomics: Add header comment so
spin_unlock_wait()") in order to prevent at least that flavor of
confusion.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
931ab4a5ce