tools/memory-model: Remove out-of-date SRCU documentation

Commit 6cd244c87428 ("tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics")
changed the semantics of partially overlapping SRCU read-side critical
sections (among other things), making such documentation out-of-date.
The new, semantic changes are discussed in explanation.txt. Remove the
out-of-date documentation.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[e-mail]>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[e-mail]>

tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt

···
 		additional call_rcu() process to the site of the
 		emulated rcu-barrier().
 
-	e.	Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there
-		are some subtle differences between its semantics and
-		those in the Linux kernel.  For example, the kernel
-		might interpret the following sequence as two partially
-		overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections:
-
-			 1  r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
-			 2  do_something_1();
-			 3  r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
-			 4  do_something_2();
-			 5  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1);
-			 6  do_something_3();
-			 7  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2);
-
-		In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of
-		SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical
-		section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section
-		spanning lines 3-5.
-
-		This difference would be more of a concern had anyone
-		identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping
-		SRCU read-side critical sections.  For more information
-		on the trickiness of such overlapping, please see:
-		https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html
-
-	f.	Reader-writer locking is not modeled.  It can be
+	e.	Reader-writer locking is not modeled.  It can be
 		emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write
 		operations.