lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectWhat does tainting actually mean?
Hi all.

I'm probably going to regret this, but seeing the current discussion on
binary modules makes me wonder:

What does tainting actually mean?

What I mean is, how does it help to know that a kernel is tainted? When
I'm working on Software Suspend and someone sends me an oops, I don't
really care whether it's marked as tainted or not. For all I know, even if
it's not tainted, they may have thrown in half a dozen different patches
aside from Suspend, any one of which could be playing a role in the
appearance of the oops. It doesn't help me to know that the kernel was
tainted. It helps me to know what the non-standard additions are (and how
the kernel was configured), regardless of whether the additions mark the
kernel tainted or not.

Of course I realise at the same time that maybe tainting has nothing to do
with saying 'This isn't an unmodified tree' and everything to do with
saying 'This kernel has had non-GPL code interacting with it'. If that's
the case, I don't see the relevance of saying (as Paul did a little while
ago):

"You deceived maintainers who receive "untainted" bug reports."

Indeed, the surrounding lines seem to make it clear that the real issue is
not fixing bugs but politics. Thus my question: What does tainting
actually mean?

Regards,

Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
C/- Westminster Presbyterian Church Belconnen
61 Templeton Street, Cook, ACT 2614, Australia.
+61 (2) 6251 7727 (wk)
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.075 / U:4.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site