On Monday, January 21, 2013 10:30:22 AM Rusty Russell wrote: > Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:27:27AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > taint: add explicit flag to show whether lock dep is still OK. > > > > > > Fix up all callers as they were before, with make one change: an > > > unsigned module taints the kernel, but doesn't turn off lockdep. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This made my brain itch a little until I got to the bottom of the > > patch and saw the new definition of add_taint. Perhaps instead of > > false/true, we have LOCKDEP_LIVES/LOCKDEP_DIES or similar defines > > to make it clearer what's actually happening without having to > > go read the function ? > > The reason I didn't do that is because it's theoretically more than > lockdep: it's anything which relies on kernel integrity. > > Then I got the true/false thing mixed up myself, so I think you're right > :) > > BTW, ACPI people: those TAINT_OVERRIDDEN_ACPI_TABLE taints were > disabling lockdep: is that overzealous? I think so, although it's quite difficult to say what the intention was at this point. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
