Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932166AbWAAN2x (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:28:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932206AbWAAN2x (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:28:53 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:50139 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932166AbWAAN2x (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:28:53 -0500 Subject: Re: MPlayer broken under 2.6.15-rc7-rt1? From: Arjan van de Ven To: jerome lacoste Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <5a2cf1f60601010412r3ec10855s5ad6ed8e0a6f2ef1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051231202933.4f48acab@galactus.example.org> <1136106861.17830.6.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060101115121.034e6bb7@galactus.example.org> <1136114772.17830.20.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <5a2cf1f60601010412r3ec10855s5ad6ed8e0a6f2ef1@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:28:49 +0100 Message-Id: <1136122129.17830.31.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1951 Lines: 41 On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 13:12 +0100, jerome lacoste wrote: > On 1/1/06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > > > > DO YOU REALLY PREFER USERS NOT REPORT BUGS? > > [...] > > > So getting back to your question: > > I would say that I think it's generally better that bugs that cannot be > > reproduced on an untainted kernel are not reported on lkml, but reported > > to the vendor of the tainting module instead, simply because it's very > > likely that it'll waste precious debug time. > > Although I like the idea of making the vendors of binary modules > really aware of the costs they introduce with regard to debug issues > on tainted system, if I was them, the first thing I would say is > "contact the vendor of the part of the system that changed", i.e. the > kernel. btw you do have a point; should nvidia care if someone patches their kernel with the -rt patchkit, something which changes many rules inside the kernel. I'm actually surprised such binary modules work *at all* given how many of the rules have changed. (For source-compiled modules it's a bit less of a surprise since the api changes get compiled through, eg most of the cases the API stayed the same the ABI didn't , for binary ones.. that only works if you're lucky I guess. Even for source modules several needed changes (just look at the -rt patchkit) ). To some degree, if you use binary modules and experimental patches, you are on your own; the module vendor is unlikely to care, but so are most of the developers of the patchkits.. (after all.. there is a good reason -rt has different rules, that is the whole POINT of the -rt patches, different rules to achieve the goal of extremely low latencies) - 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/