[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070709105123.1df728b2@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:51:23 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Please revert 21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:46:46 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>> Reverting is safe since it simply re-establishes the 2.6.21 status quo.
> >>>
> >> Well, not really. It breaks any non-GPL module when CONFIG_PARAVIRT is
> >> enabled, even though the same module would work fine otherwise. That's
> >> a pretty large regression.
> >> ...
> >>
> >
> > The 2.6.21 status quo can by definition not be a regression compared
> > to 2.6.21.
> >
>
> 2.6.21's behaviour was a bug. CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not supposed to cause
> any behavioural changes.
2.6.22's behaviour is the bug. 2.6.21 you couldn't load random binary
crap into the kernel without logging a taint. 2.6.22 you can. This means
every single 2.6.22 bug report has to be assumed to be caused by binary
module crap as a starting point which slows down debug immensely.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists