On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 09:00 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to define those two as static inlines ? > > Yes, I think so. I gave this a try and it turned out not to fit into any header too well. I decided putting it into a generic header was not great since these are actually supposed to be arch implementations. Emphasizing that point, mmap.c actually defines these unless HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA is defined. So to make it work, mm.h would have to assume that if HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA and HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA_TOPDOWN are defined, the arch actually doesn't have an arch_unmmapped_area() and wants a static inline version of arch_get_unmapped_area(). It confuses the meaning of HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA a bit to mean the opposite in some cases. Adding a ARCH_WANTS_UNMAPPED_AREA_INLINE seemed excessive. As for putting them in an arch/x86 header, I tried asm/mmu.h, but arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown/_vmflags() had to be forward declared. But then also vm_flags_t couldn't be pulled in properly because of a circular dependency. A few others hit weirdness or breakages. So in the end, I decided to just leave it as a non-static inline in arch/x86. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to just let 0-day build test all the archs, and I'll post the series with the rest of the feedback in a few days.
