From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759730Ab1LPOvh (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:51:37 -0500 Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:34003 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759212Ab1LPOva (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:51:30 -0500 Subject: Re: unexpected taint message From: Johannes Berg To: Larry Finger Cc: Arend van Spriel , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , John Linville In-Reply-To: <4EEB5A60.3090101@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111216_154940_152892_953155B5) References: <4EEB0EFC.5000302@broadcom.com> (sfid-20111216_102800_182196_AFD2D6CF) <1324038636.3429.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4EEB4D61.80602@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111216_145414_221850_EED1E4DE) <1324043939.3429.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4EEB521A.70602@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111216_151411_303937_12579E4F) <1324045233.3429.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4EEB5A60.3090101@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111216_154940_152892_953155B5) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:51:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1324047085.3429.5.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 08:49 -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > > + switch (flag) { > > + case TAINT_CRAP: > > + case TAINT_WARN: > > + case TAINT_OOT_MODULE: > > + break; > > + default: > > + if (__debug_locks_off()) > > + printk(KERN_WARNING > > + "Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint\n"); > > + } > > > > set_bit(flag,&tainted_mask); > > } > > Yes. I like this patch a lot. Unfortunately, VirtualBox was a part of the > decision to add the OOT taint. At least for that reason, this patch would not be > accepted upstream. It is too bad that the Oracle people fought so hard to keep > their module from setting TAINT_CRAP the way that GregKH wanted. That would have > had fewer side effects for me. I'm not sure -- I mean, it's one thing to identify OOT modules and refuse to support them (and ignore lockdep reports with OOT set), but it's another to just disable lockdep? I think? johannes