On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:24:47 -0700, viro wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:11:32AM +0800, majianpeng wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:00:54 +0100 , viro wrote:
>> >On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:16:18PM +0800, majianpeng wrote:
>> >> In Commit 7d74f492e4dd0034a61458eb80f70b1d2862ed07,author said:
>> >> "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."
>> >>
>> >> But author did not say about set_task_comm().At present,I used it but
>> >> compiled error.To the same purpose, it should export.
>>
>> >Are you doing that to preexisting process? Or just to a kernel thread
>> >you are creating? In the latter case, you really ought to use
>> >kthread_create() instead of bare-metal kernel_thread()...
>>
>> Yes, I am doing that to preexisting process and in module.So I think it should export.
>
>Why is that module playing with ->comm[] of process it hadn't spawned?
>Note that _reading_ ->comm[] has fairly mundane uses - debugging printks
>and all such. Changing it, OTOH...
>
>Details, please; "my module calls that, so it should be exported" is not enough.
This module is md.
It created a thread with kthread_run.But the name is wrong because using some old information.
Because it has mode places like this, so I thought to change the name at run-place .
If so, I can modify the ->comm[] directly?
--------------
majianpeng
?韬{.n?????%??檩??w?{.n???{饼?z鳐??骅w* jg????????G??⒏ ⒎?:+v???????? ????＂??????
