On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:48:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > 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. -- 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/
