[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303512239.13457.123.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:43:59 -0700
From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundattion.org, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suhail.ahmed@...el.com,
christophe.guerard@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] export kernel call get_task_comm().
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 15:35 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 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>
>
> I still suggest that we implement finer-grained protection for tsk->comm
> through get_task_comm(), though, because it's going to be difficult to
> know whether task_lock(tsk) is held in all contexts we'll want to call it;
> task_lock(tsk) is used to protect many members of task_struct.
Okay, but how about accepting this as step 1, then investigate a finer
grained lock structure as step 2?
--
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