Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: move task_will_free_mem up in the file to be used in process_mrelease

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 5:44 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.07.21 23:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > process_mrelease needs to be added in the CONFIG_MMU-dependent block which
> > comes before __task_will_free_mem and task_will_free_mem. Move these
> > functions before this block so that new process_mrelease syscall can use
> > them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > ---
> > changes in v2:
> > - Fixed build error when CONFIG_MMU=n, reported by kernel test robot. This
> > required moving task_will_free_mem implemented in the first patch
> > - Renamed process_reap to process_mrelease, per majority of votes
> > - Replaced "dying process" with "process which was sent a SIGKILL signal" in
> > the manual page text, per Florian Weimer
> > - Added ERRORS section in the manual page text
> > - Resolved conflicts in syscall numbers caused by the new memfd_secret syscall
> > - Separated boilerplate code wiring-up the new syscall into a separate patch
> > to facilitate the review process
> >
> >   mm/oom_kill.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >   1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>
> TBH, I really dislike this move as it makes git blame a lot harder with
> any real benefit.
>
> Can't you just use prototypes to avoid the move for now in patch #2?
>
> static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task);

Sure, I can use a forward-declaration. Just thought this would be
cleaner. Will change in the next rev. Thanks!

>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>