Re: [2.6 patch] unexport complete_all

From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Date: Tue Mar 08 2005 - 03:26:49 EST

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:14:39 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:15:04 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> 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...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at