Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>
>> > Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
>> > good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
>> > untainted kernel was found.
>>
>> I disagree with this. It's useful to have a "we've seen this before,
>> and every time, it was tainted with xyz module" datapoint, especially
>> if no untainted copies of that oops turn up.
>
> +1
>
> In fact, that's even more useful in many cases, if it helps demonstrate
> that the oops is associated with a particular buggy binary driver. I can
> see a lot of potentially interesting statistics coming from that too.
-1 :-)
I don't care at all what this xyz module does or does not do by and in
itself.
(Of course since at least two people care and since this makes life
easier for Arjan, just keep listing reports about tainted kernels like
you do now. It just so happens that different people are interested in
different things.)
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== ==-- =---=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
