Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:23:18 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |