On 2013/9/10 4:22, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Qiang Huang wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
>> index da60007..d061c63 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
>> @@ -82,6 +82,11 @@ static inline void oom_killer_enable(void)
>> oom_killer_disabled = false;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>
> Makes sense, but I think the name should be more specific to gfp flags to
> make it clear what it's using to determine eligibility, maybe oom_gfp_allowed()?
> We usually prefix oom killer functions with "oom".
Yes, oom_gfp_allowed() seems better, I'll send a second version,
thanks for you advice, David.
>
> Nice taste.
>
>> +{
>> + return (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY);
>> +}
>> +
>> extern struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p);
>>
>> /* sysctls */
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>