* Shailabh Nagar <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. task_curr is what we needed. Would exporting task_curr be ok > or should we continue to wrap in a separate function ? wrapping a non-exported function and then exporting it is not nice at all (it circumvents the non-exported status of that original function). But we can internal-export (EXPORT_GPL) task_curr() itself. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- From: Gerrit Huizenga <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- References:
- [patch 00/38] CKRM e18: Updated core patches to 2.6.12 and included e17 changes
- From: Gerrit Huizenga <[email protected]>
- [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- From: Gerrit Huizenga <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- From: Shailabh Nagar <[email protected]>
- [patch 00/38] CKRM e18: Updated core patches to 2.6.12 and included e17 changes
- Prev by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Next by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Previous by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- Next by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [patch 02/38] CKRM e18: Processor Delay Accounting
- Index(es):
 |