[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206181318.GA9842@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:13:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, ben@...adent.org.uk,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, bug: Exclude
TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND from disabling lockdep
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > My primary worry is to not have lockdep active when there's
> > binary modules in a system - can TAINT_OOT_MODULE be set but
> > TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE not set for non-GPL modules?
>
> Yes. I imagine anyone wanting to use lockdep with binary modules
> would just lie anyway.
>
> > If not, and if TAINT_OOT_MODULE set and TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE
> > cleared guarantees the GPL-ness of the module then i have no
> > problem with keeping lockdep active in that case.
>
> Insofar as nobody is making their code line about licenses.
Fair enough - so i agree that we can allow OOT_MODULE's with
lockdep and thus revert the lockdep-disabling effect of:
2449b8ba0745: module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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