> From: Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [...] > > > kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 7 +++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c index > > > 91fb5905a008..5e580cd08c58 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c > > > @@ -522,6 +522,8 @@ rcu_scale_print_module_parms(struct > rcu_scale_ops *cur_ops, const char *tag) > > > scale_type, tag, nrealreaders, nrealwriters, verbose, > > > shutdown); } > > > > > > +static void kfree_scale_cleanup(void); > > > + > > > > I do applaud minmimizing the size of the patch, but in this case could > > you please pull the kfree_scale_cleanup() function ahead of its first use? > > The only trouble with moving the function like that is, the file is mostly split > across kfree and non-kfree functions. So moving a kfree function to be > among the non-kfree ones would look a bit weird. Yes, this would look a bit weird ... Please see the reply to Paul in another e-mail: "Pull the rcu_scale_cleanup() function after kfree_scale_cleanup(). This groups kfree_* functions and groups rcu_scale_* functions. Then the code would look cleaner." > Perhaps a better place for the function declaration could be a new > "rcuscale.h". But I am really Ok with Paul's suggestion as well. > > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the review. :-) > thanks, > > - Joel
