[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The tainted message
On 27 Apr 2002 20:27:07 -0500, 
Richard Thrapp <> wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 19:27, Keith Owens wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:20:03 +0100 (BST),
>> Alan Cox <> wrote:
>> >How about
>> >
>> >Warning: The module you have loaded (%s) does not seem to have an open
>> > source license. Please send any kernel problem reports to the
>> > author of this module, or duplicate them from a boot without
>> > ever loading this module before reporting them to the community
>> > or your Linux vendor
>> I'm going for the current message followed by "See <URL> for more
>> information". <URL> defaults to,
>> vendors who want to point to their policy text can override the URL
>> when they build modutils.
>Why did you tell me to ask here and go with what Alan said if you
>weren't going to listen to the discussion? Alan's message corrects all
>of the problems we found. Several people agreed on the basic form. If
>you weren't going to go with the agreed upon result, why did you have me
>ask here? You just wasted a lot of our time. You should have just told
>me earlier that you weren't going to correct it -- I would have accepted
>the decision.

The discussion was useful. I choose to agree with the people who
suggested a URL rather than with Alan's suggestion of an expanded
message. It allows vendors who want to support their customers
directly to add a reference to their policy and remove the load from

That is what discussion is for, to bring out possibilities. If you
don't like my decision you are free to ship and maintain your own
modified version of modutils.

>I get sick and tired of maintainers who solicit opinions and then refuse
>to listen to the answers they get back, even when people who know what
>they are doing agree... even when the majority agrees. I've seen it
>happen many times. I know it's the maintainer's choice in the end, but
>don't ask for community opinions unless you're going to listen to them.
>It's insulting and infuriating.

Translation: "I don't like the decision so I will complain about the
maintainer". See above.

>I provide a module, not a distribution. I've found that people want to
>choose their distribution, even sometimes in embedded space, so I let
>them (and I have no interest in providing a distribution anyway). I
>cannot control what modutils they run. But I get bug reports back on
>the module due to the tainted message.

That is one of the many costs you have to bear for shipping binary only
modules. I am not going to make life easier for you. In your original
message to me you made no mention of the fact that you are shipping
binary only modules, if I had know that in advance I would not have
tried to help you, now you have no credibility with me.

>At the very least, -please- change the verb tense of the message to be
>correct. That will at least eliminate the "module doesn't load" bug
>reports (I hope).

The verb tense is correct. The message is issued before the module is
loaded and descibes what is about to occur.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.088 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site