Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] export kernel call get_task_comm(). | From | J Freyensee <> | Date | Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:08:16 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:04 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 03:59:42PM -0700, J Freyensee wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 15:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 03:35:44PM -0700, james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com wrote: > > > > From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > This allows drivers who call this function to be compiled modularly. > > > > Otherwise, a driver who is interested in this type of functionality > > > > has to implement their own get_task_comm() call, causing code > > > > duplication in the Linux source tree. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > I think the goal is for the cleanup to happen now, to justify the > > > addition of the exported symbol. Without that, there is no need to > > > export the symbol now at all, as who knows when your driver will be > > > accepted. > > > > > > Or, just wait and make it part of your driver patch series, like you did > > > before, no need to get it accepted now, right? > > > > > > > Well, at some point a few people like Alan Cox and Arjan VdV would like > > to see this work on it's way to Linus's tree. > > That's because that is the policy of your distro you are working with, > which has nothing to do with the kernel developers. > > Again, if you get your driver accepted, I have no objection to this > export at all. Just take the time and get your driver merged, it's that > simple.
So I guess the best route is for me to make this patch with my driver then? I'm ready to re-submit those drivers again; I cleaned up all the style issues pointed out by Randy.
> > thanks, > > greg k-h
| |