[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7eb17da6-03a6-5eaf-16e6-97b53ba163d8@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:43:52 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: mhocko@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com,
riel@...riel.com, minchan@...nel.org, christian@...uner.io,
hch@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
fweimer@...hat.com, jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: move task_will_free_mem up in the file to
be used in process_mrelease
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@...gle.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);
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists