Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:24:28 +0100 | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] unexport complete_all |
| |
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:14:39 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:15:04 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Andrew, what is the policy for adding exports for out of tree GPL code? > > > > > > > There isn't one. Such things cause way too much email. > > Lack of policy causes the same thing (ie. this thread). > > > What complete_all() does is to permit more than one task to wait on a > > completion and for all those tasks to be woken by a single complete(). > > Without it you'd need to record how many tasks are sleeping there and do > > complete() that many times. > > > > So it's a sensible part of the completion API from a regularity-of-the-API > > This function was already part of in-kernel API, just wasn't exported > for modules because there were no in-kernel users. > > > POV. We use it in the coredump code and I don't think we'd be likely to want > > to rip it out.
It was my misunderstanding w.r.t. 'We' here...
> OK, I understand that the unwritten policy is the following: > symbols for out-of-tree code used by OSDL are fine. 8)
/me takes this bad joke back and says sorry to Andrew
> > In fact, I'd say that complete() should have always done it this way... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |