From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:51:47 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:24068 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:51:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.9-ac6 To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:55:51 +0100 (BST) Cc: justin@soze.net (Justin Guyett), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Sep 05, 2001 02:53:24 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I hope I'm not overreacting. It just seems that tainting based upon > licensing doesn't do what's really wanted, which is to make sure that the > user has the source and those who wish to debug can also get the source. The > first part of that is really easy to check directly (and you catch stupidity > due to mismatched versions, SMP versus UP, and so on). I think it makes > sense to 'force' the user to replicate the bug after having cleanly compiled > the module. This ensures that at least he has the source. The goal is very simple. It is to make the information available. What people choose to do with that information and such bug reports is up to them. Similarly the policy is in user space modutils. Unfortunately I get so many bug reports caused by the nvidia modules and people lying when asked if they have them loaded that some kind of action has to occur, otherwise I'm going to have to stop reading bug reports from anyone I don't know personally. I am not prepared to be an unpaid Nvidia support goon. Alan