[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303258222.13457.42.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:10:22 -0700
From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
suhail.ahmed@...el.com, christophe.guerard@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] export kernel call get_task_comm().
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 16:22 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, james_p_freyensee@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>
> > From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@...ux.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@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>
> There've been some other patchsets proposed recently that need to print a
> thread's comm and since /proc/pid/comm can change the comm's of other
> threads out from under them, it's necessary to serialize access to it with
> task_lock(). This patch certainly makes it easier for modules to do so
> correctly, thanks!
Thanks for the compliment; it's appreciated. I've made my patch sets
independent from one another. And I believe a common consensus (at
least with Greg KH, Alan C., Arjan VdV and myself) was achieved that
this is a good patch to apply? So maybe this can be applied to the
kernel, independent of my other patches, so this will fit your needs?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists