Re: [2.6 patch] unexport complete_all

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:14:39 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:15:04 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew, what is the policy for adding exports for out of tree GPL code?
> > >
> >
> > There isn't one.  Such things cause way too much email.
> 
> Lack of policy causes the same thing (ie. this thread).
> 
> > What complete_all() does is to permit more than one task to wait on a
> > completion and for all those tasks to be woken by a single complete().
> > Without it you'd need to record how many tasks are sleeping there and do
> > complete() that many times.
> >
> > So it's a sensible part of the completion API from a regularity-of-the-API
> 
> This function was already part of in-kernel API, just wasn't exported
> for modules because there were no in-kernel users.
> 
> > POV.  We use it in the coredump code and I don't think we'd be likely to want
> > to rip it out.

It was my misunderstanding w.r.t. 'We' here...

> OK, I understand that the unwritten policy is the following:
> symbols for out-of-tree code used by OSDL are fine. 8)

/me takes this bad joke back and says sorry to Andrew

> > In fact, I'd say that complete() should have always done it this way...