From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751930AbbFBUbr (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:31:47 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39271 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751158AbbFBUbk (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:31:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:31:38 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Ani Sinha Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , fruggeri , Ivan Delalande Subject: Re: kernel_thread() for non-GPL drivers Message-ID: <20150602203138.GK7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Ani Sinha wrote: > So my question to you is, which api (for x86) are drivers supposed to > use if kernel_thread() is no longer available? It looks to me like > maybe we can use kthread_run() which eventually lazily creates a > kernel thread. Is my understanding correct? First of all, what the hell does it have to do with GPL? Or modules vs. built-in, for that matter... kernel_thread() is _not_ what it used to be way back and export or no export, your driver isn't going to be happy with it. kthread_run() had been there for more than 11 years, for crying out loud!