Re: [PATCH] export kernel call get_task_comm().

[J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>]

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