Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, bug: ExcludeTAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND from disabling lockdep

[Ingo Molnar]

* Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > My primary worry is to not have lockdep active when there's 
> > binary modules in a system - can TAINT_OOT_MODULE be set but 
> > TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE not set for non-GPL modules?
> 
> Yes. I imagine anyone wanting to use lockdep with binary modules
> would just lie anyway.
> 
> > If not, and if TAINT_OOT_MODULE set and TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE 
> > cleared guarantees the GPL-ness of the module then i have no 
> > problem with keeping lockdep active in that case.
> 
> Insofar as nobody is making their code line about licenses.

Fair enough - so i agree that we can allow OOT_MODULE's with 
lockdep and thus revert the lockdep-disabling effect of:

 2449b8ba0745: module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/