lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.9-ac6
On Wed, 2001-09-05 13:16:58 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>
wrote in message <3B9617BA.F771914E@redhat.com>:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > > based upon whether you have the source or not. What should logically taint
> > > the kernel are modules that weren't compiled for that exact kernel version
> > > or are otherwise mismatched.
> > Setting a flag for the insmod -f required case as well is an extremely good
> > idea. This is entirely about making information available nothing else and
> > your suggestion there is a good one.
>
> How about making the "tainted" field a bitmask ?
> eg bit 0 --> non GPL/BSD module
> bit 1 --> insmod -f

Basically, I don't like that idea. 'insmod -f' should only be
required if the module in question is some kind of a commercial (TM)
module. Setting a "GPL/BSD" flag might be somewhat interesting
(but enlarges needed on-disk-space), but I don't like to help
those commercials to ease the use of their broken, binary-only
modules.

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw . jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02    [W:0.089 / U:2.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site