On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:33:15 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:34:29AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > ERROR: ".get_task_comm" [fs/nfsd/nfsd.ko] undefined!
> >
> > Caused by commit c67874f942e30039442d925b03793e0a46ddcddd ("nfsd:
> > formally deprecate legacy nfsd syscall interface").
> >
> > get_task_comm is not exported to modules.
> >
> > I have used the version of the nfsd tree from next-20100921 for today.
>
> Oops, thanks.
>
> It looks like a lot of places just do a
>
> printk("%s using deprecated interface ...", current->comm);
>
> so maybe we can get away with just that?
>
> --b.
sched.h says:
char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN]; /* executable name excluding path
- access with [gs]et_task_comm (which lock
it with task_lock())
- initialized normally by setup_new_exec */
So we should lock...
But then fs/exec.c says:
void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
{
task_lock(tsk);
/*
* Threads may access current->comm without holding
* the task lock, so write the string carefully.
* Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
* names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
*/
.....
So I guess we are safe to use it unlocked for informational purposes.
That first comment could do with an update, and where-ever it was that I
copied that code from can probably be simplified too.....
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
