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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:43:52 +0200 David Hildenbrand [off-list ref] wrote:

On 18.07.21 23:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

quoted

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);

This change makes the code better - it's silly to be adding forward
declarations just because the functions are in the wrong place.

If that messes up git-blame then let's come up with better tooling
rather than suffering poorer kernel code because the tools aren't doing
what we want of them.  Surely?