On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:48:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> 
> > Yes it is. But I thought the existing code was intending to taint the
> > kernel (that's what it does), so it would really help to identify why it
> > tainted the kernel, by calling add_taint_module instead of add_taint. I
> > didn't put the existing match in there...don't shoot the messenger :)
> 
> So, it's the same thing as in year 2006.  Good intentions, unexpected
> side effects, and a long discussion.

I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided to
load a graphics driver?), but I wasn't trying to make that point.

Rusty - shall we just move the taint to post symbol resolution?

Jon.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/