On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 08:10:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > in task_struct then perhaps so assuming that we care about it enough to do > > it in such a way. Otherwise I don't see your point. > > Are task_struct and mm_struct exposed to modules?
Yes. > they should need to be, but I am no expert in the kernel. If this is meant > to be this way, then shouldn't the struct have some amount of padding to > allow for changes like this without breaking compatibility? At least not for upstream. If you think it's valueable for debian to provide this do it.
