Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Add vma_start_write_killable()

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 01:53:44PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > @@ -286,6 +310,9 @@ static inline struct vm_area_struct *vma_start_read(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > >                 { return NULL; }
> > >  static inline void vma_end_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma) {}
> > >  static inline void vma_start_write(struct vm_area_struct *vma) {}
> > > +static inline
> > > +int __must_check vma_start_write_killable(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > +{ return 0; }
> >
> > nit: a tab for consistency with other stubs please.
>
> No.  This is a stupid indentation style that's not in use anywhere else.
> There is not one inline function in linux/mm.h that uses this formatting.
> If anything, I'd correct the other stubs to match the rest of the kernel.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that.

>
> > Let's add a comment to list possible return values:
> > 0 - the vma is not attached;
> > 1 - the vma is attached with no readers;
> > negative - an error code;
>
> I considered doing that, but decided it wasn't worth doing since there
> are only two callers and it's a static function.  If you feel strongly
> I'll add it though.

If it's not too much trouble. I think it's not very clear from reading
the code, so a comment would be helpful.


>