diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.txt
index 453ebe69..f05a9af 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.txt
@@ -10,7 +10,19 @@
 
 3.  Resizeable Arrays
 
-Each of these situations are discussed below.
+Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
+array that is separately indexed.  It might be tempting to consider use
+of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
+case is -not- supported.  The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
+arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
+integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
+are far more trouble than they are worth.  If RCU-protected indexes into
+arrays prove to be particularly valuable (which they have not thus far),
+explicit cooperation from the compiler will be required to permit them
+to be safely used.
+
+That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
+described in the following sections.
 
 
 Situation 1: Hash Tables
@@ -36,9 +48,9 @@
 Situation 3: Resizeable Arrays
 
 Use of RCU for resizeable arrays is demonstrated by the grow_ary()
-function used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used to map from
-semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data structure
-that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary()
+function formerly used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used
+to map from semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data
+structure that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary()
 function does not acquire any locks; instead its caller must hold the
 ids->sem semaphore.
 
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
index cd83d23..da51d30 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
@@ -47,11 +47,6 @@
 		Use explicit check expression "c" along with
 		srcu_read_lock_held()().  This is useful in code that
 		is invoked by both SRCU readers and updaters.
-	rcu_dereference_index_check(p, c):
-		Use explicit check expression "c", but the caller
-		must supply one of the rcu_read_lock_held() functions.
-		This is useful in code that uses RCU-protected arrays
-		that is invoked by both RCU readers and updaters.
 	rcu_dereference_raw(p):
 		Don't check.  (Use sparingly, if at all.)
 	rcu_dereference_protected(p, c):
@@ -64,11 +59,6 @@
 		but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
 		or coalescsing.  This is useful when when testing the
 		value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL.
-	rcu_access_index(idx):
-		Return the value of the index and omit all barriers, but
-		retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
-		or coalescsing.  This is useful when when testing the
-		value of the index itself, for example, against -1.
 
 The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean
 expression, but would normally include a lockdep expression.  However,
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt
index ceb05da..66864d2 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt
@@ -25,17 +25,6 @@
 	for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact
 	value of the pointer, and thus cause misordering.
 
-o	Do not use single-element RCU-protected arrays.  The compiler
-	is within its right to assume that the value of an index into
-	such an array must necessarily evaluate to zero.  The compiler
-	could then substitute the constant zero for the computation, so
-	that the array index no longer depended on the value returned
-	by rcu_dereference().  If the array index no longer depends
-	on rcu_dereference(), then both the compiler and the CPU
-	are within their rights to order the array access before the
-	rcu_dereference(), which can cause the array access to return
-	garbage.
-
 o	Avoid cancellation when using the "+" and "-" infix arithmetic
 	operators.  For example, for a given variable "x", avoid
 	"(x-x)".  There are similar arithmetic pitfalls from other
@@ -76,14 +65,15 @@
 	dereferencing.	For example, the following (rather improbable)
 	code is buggy:
 
-		int a[2];
-		int index;
-		int force_zero_index = 1;
+		int *p;
+		int *q;
 
 		...
 
-		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
-		r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
+		p = rcu_dereference(gp)
+		q = &global_q;
+		q += p != &oom_p1 && p != &oom_p2;
+		r1 = *q;  /* BUGGY!!! */
 
 	The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled
 	using branches.  While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC
@@ -94,14 +84,15 @@
 	">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing.  For example,
 	the following (quite strange) code is buggy:
 
-		int a[2];
-		int index;
-		int flip_index = 0;
+		int *p;
+		int *q;
 
 		...
 
-		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
-		r2 = a[r1 != flip_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
+		p = rcu_dereference(gp)
+		q = &global_q;
+		q += p > &oom_p;
+		r1 = *q;  /* BUGGY!!! */
 
 	As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators
 	are often compiled using branches.  And as before, although
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
index 88dfce1..b201d4c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -879,9 +879,7 @@
 
 All:  lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access
 
-	rcu_access_index
 	rcu_access_pointer
-	rcu_dereference_index_check
 	rcu_dereference_raw
 	rcu_lockdep_assert
 	rcu_sleep_check