On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This is a generic version of Daniel's patch [1] letting us have unsafe >> module parameters (experimental, debugging, testing, etc.) that taint >> the kernel when set. Quoting Daniel, > > OK, I think the idea is fine, but we'll probably only want this for > a few types (eg. int and bool). So for the moment I prefer a more > naive approach. > > Does this work for you? Can you please discuss this with yourself from a few months back? We've done the general version since you suggested that just doing it for int is a bit lame ;-) And I actually agreed so asked Jani to look into that. http://mid.mail-archive.com/87r46gywul.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "If this is a good idea, you can write a macro module_param_unsafe_named which is a general wrapper." Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
