On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:00:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> > Internally here that is how we planned on using the flag.  We weren't sure
> > if upstream would accept that piece or not, so we started with the flag
> > for now to at least reserve the bit.
> > 
> > But I can see your point about the other printk being a little
> > user-hostile if someone forgot to call the wrapper function.
> > 
> > I can respin with the wrapper function (Prarit is on vacation)
> 
> Not telling the user _which_ hardware is causing the problem is daft.
> 
> > or go with
> > Alan's idea of just reserving the upper few bits.
> 
> um.  Given that the vendor needs to patch the individual drivers to
> indicate ther unsupported status, why not just patch in the taint
> changes as well?

Well we wanted to secure a bit flag first, so we don't bite ourselves later and
have to change the userspace tools.

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