Re: [BProc] kernel patch - take 2

[henken <he...@se...>]

Oh--it was my fault, I deleted a line when hand patching the rejects.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Erik Arjan Hendriks wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 07:43:18PM -0400, henken wrote:
> >
> > apparently the bproc modules would like __all__ of the symbols it needs
> > exported. New patch is here:
> >
> > http://reno.cis.upenn.edu/~henken/patches
>
> What symbols was it complaining about?  I suspect this is a Red Hat
> kernel problem since I don't see any problems.  (at least thru 2.4.10)
>
> > P.S Any plans to make the bproc stuff move to using the GPL symbols?
>
> Not at this point.  It's not critical and it would needlessly hurt
> backward compatibility right now.  When I generate a patch that will
> only work on linux 2.4.12 or later, I'll think about it.  The 2.4.10
> patch appears to apply cleanly but I haven't tested it.
>
> I really don't think that this kind of thing is a big deal.  Having
> the system automagically bitch or not doesn't change the license on
> BProc.  There's virtually no BProc code *in* the kernel anyway.  If
> somebody wrote non-GPL modules to use those hooks, it would amount to
> reimplementing the whole thing.
>
Gotcha -- wasnt sure if that was the case or not.


> - Erik
>
One more question:
Is the pid masquerading visible somewhere in /proc in 3.x on the master?
Or is it just on the slave?

Nic
-- 
Nicholas Henke
Undergraduate - SEAS '02
Liniac Project - University of Pennsylvania
http://clubmask.sourceforge.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
work: 215-873-5149
cell/home: 215-681-2705
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's nothing like good food, good beer, and a bad girl.