Re: Linux 2.4.9-ac6
Jan-Benedict Glaw (jbglaw@lug-owl.de)
Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:23:18 +0200
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/