From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753379Ab2A3Tul (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:50:41 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:55765 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751975Ab2A3Tuk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:50:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:50:33 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Greg KH Cc: Arve =?utf-8?B?SGrDuG5uZXbDpWc=?= , KOSAKI Motohiro , San Mehat , Colin Cross , Oleg Nesterov , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] procfs: Export next_tgid(), move it to kernel/pid.c Message-ID: <20120130195033.GA1557@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20120130011323.GA30274@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20120130022242.GA5805@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120130022242.GA5805@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 06:22:42PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 05:13:23AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > We'd like to use this function in the android low memory killer driver, so > > let's export it. > > Why is it needed? > > I _REALLY_ don't want to add any exports to any part of the kernel for > the android low memory stuff. That is because it is not something that > should be touching anything else, especially as numerous people disagree > with what it does and how it does it. > > Instead, you should be spending the time and effort to properly > implement this, as has been discussed numerous times, the last one a > mere few weeks ago when someone tried adding the nokia-specific low > memory killer/notifier code. Yep, and I fully agree here. But doing it the right way (i.e. teaching Android to use low memory notifiers) will take some time. And improving current driver meanwhile is just my sub-task. > So no, sorry, I will not take these patches, unless you come up with > some very good justifications why. Well, actually, this patches were born as a response to LMK review[1] by KOSAKI Motohiro, he did not like the tasklist lock. Though, I agree that it might be not a great idea to export API for the driver that is about to superseded by a different approach (i.e. notifiers). :-) Heh. But you never know where you'll end up before you actually try to do something. I have tried to get rid of the tacklist lock, and it appears that it causes more trouble. :-) [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/19/294 -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com