Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Jon Masters
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 00:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Remember - when a user tries a Linux box with a proprietary module, and the > experience sucks because the module sucks, they will walk away thinking > "Linux sucks", not "That module sucks". Worse, if they're technically inclined, the

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:48:12 EST, Mathieu Desnoyers said: > This specific one is a kernel policy matter, and I personally don't > have a strong opinion about it. I agree that you raise a good counter > argument : it can be useful to proprietary modules users to be able to > extract tracing informa

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Jon Masters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:01 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > if (!(mod->taints & (TAINT_FORCED_MODULE | TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE))) > > > > Which remembers me to never write code before my first coffee in the > > morning ;) > > I switched to decaf

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Jon Masters
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:01 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > if (!(mod->taints & (TAINT_FORCED_MODULE | TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE))) > > Which remembers me to never write code before my first coffee in the > morning ;) I switched to decaf and joined a gym...for someone who used to have 23 shots

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Mathieu Desnoyers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Frank Ch. Eigler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi - > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:17:40PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > Is this an attempt to not set a m

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Frank Ch. Eigler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi - > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:17:40PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? [...] > > > > > > > > I can't

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-23 Thread Frank Ch. Eigler
Hi - On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:17:40PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > [...] > > > > Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? [...] > > > > > > I can't seem to find any discussion about this aspect. If this is th

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-22 Thread Jon Masters
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Frank Ch. Eigler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I notice in module.c: > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS > > >

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-22 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Frank Ch. Eigler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I notice in module.c: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS > > if (!mod->taints) > > marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers, > >

Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-22 Thread Frank Ch. Eigler
Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I notice in module.c: > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS > if (!mod->taints) > marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers, > mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL); > #endif >

CONFIG_MARKERS

2008-01-22 Thread Jon Masters
Yo, I notice in module.c: #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS if (!mod->taints) marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers, mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL); #endif Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? If so, then