On Wednesday 06 October 2004 16:16, Anders Johansson wrote: [snipped]
Yes, I understand what you meant
It doesn't appear that you do
I do, believe me :)
(or what the README) meant but...
Anyway, it's *not* peculiar to SUSE. IOW, even if you're using a kernel compiled by, let's say Red Hat, you'll still see that message.
No I won't. I just checked, and red hat has not adopted that suse extension, at least not in fedora core 2. I have no idea what they do in their RHEL version.
I just did a quick googling and it seems like the other distros have them too ;)
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=25401 http://www.applia.fr/contents/knoppix64.html
Those discuss non-GPL modules, not "unsupported modules"
Besides, IIRC, I had *exactly* the same wordings when I compiled the ASUS LAN drivers (found on the ASUS site) on the machine I'm using when it was still on RH9. Btw, a similar wording is found when you're using VMWare:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/shrike-list/2004-February/m sg00251.html
that says "module license unspecified" not "unsupported module"
You might want to check this as well:
that discusses a binary only module.
OK, it seems we have a misunderstanding here
Apparently...
I am not claiming that kernel tainting as such is suse specific. I know all linux kernels that aren't too old have that concept
HOWEVER: All other kernels only get tainted when you load a module that isn't GPLed (ok, yeah, if you force-load a module too). ONLY! No link you have posted have said anything about a GPL module being capable of tainting the kernel. They all discuss binary-only or otherwise non-GPL modules. You see the difference?
Yes. But, who mentioned anything about "binary-only" or "non- GPL" modules? ;) Besides, if you remember the original message, it talked about compiling one's own modules. Which, if I'm not mistaken, are most likely non-GPL modules. (But, of course, I'm just guessing here...)
SUSE has introduced a new concept: module support. This means that they tag their modules in a specific way, and when you load a third party module that does not have that tag, the kernel gets tainted and you see the message. This is so SUSE can easily see if you have done something that they don't officially support.
So, to reiterate, it is NOT about tainting, it is about this particular kind of tainting.
Yes, I understand your point.
Later, if I find a way to check it on RHEL (I have version 3), I'll check if the words come out exactly as it was on RH9.
Please do, and when you do, don't look just at the word "taint", look for the words "unsupported module"
Well, I guess it wouldn't be necessary at this point since the most likely words I'll find is something to this effect: "Warning: Loading %s will taint the kernel..." ( http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/168 ) I thought we're talking about the same thing but it seems like SuSE "extended" the idea and adapted a different "kind" of tainting. I wonder if the original message (found above) will ever come out in SuSE's warning messages... anyway... -- - E - on SUSE 9.1 | KDE 3.3 | ASUS P4C800 Deluxe \ Pentium 4 3.0GHz | Tachyon G9600 PRO-M \ Transcend 2GB RAM | copperwalls was here ;) "Maintain your conduct fine among the nations." - 1 Peter 2:12