Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:39:57 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal.c: Export symbol __lock_task_sighand
Message-ID: <20200622083957.lfgz4j2dop5ryiz6@wittgenstein>
References: <20200621133704.77896-1-alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
 <20200621135437.GA18092@nautica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200621135437.GA18092@nautica>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 03:54:37PM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020:
> > Export symbol __lock_task_sighand, so it is accessible from code compiled
> > as modules.
> > This fixes the following modpost error:
> > ERROR: modpost: "__lock_task_sighand" [net/9p/9pnet.ko] undefined!
> 
> This can't fix something that's not broken (yet)! :)
> 
> I think it'd make more sense to describe why you think we should export
> it, rather than describe a precise usecase e.g. justify why this would
> be interesting to use from modules (e.g. it would help modules like 9p
> take a lock on the current signal handler safely and cleanly through
> lock_task_sighand())
> 
> 
> 
> Christian, Andrew - assuming this passes reviews from someone else I'm
> not sure how to go forward with this; it'd be simpler for me if I could
> take it in the 9p tree as I need it for the patch Alexander pointed at,
> but I'm not normally touching any file outside of the 9p tree.
> Is it better to let either of you take it normally (I think it'd be
> you?) and wait for that to land, or can I take it in my tree for the
> next merge window?

Hm, I don't think the patch is really needed though; see my other mail. :)

Christian