Stefan Richter wrote:
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.
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.
I don't care at all what this xyz module does or does not do by and in
the thing is this: The goal of kerneloops.org is to allow developers to focus their effort on the real
important cases. Part of that is knowing which cases to dismiss/not spend time on because of their
relation with one or more binary drivers.... so imo keeping track of this and showing the "don't bother"
flag with it is very much worthwhile; it allows us developers to know what to ignore.
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]