Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] module: add support for unsafe, tainting parameters

2014-08-21 Thread Jani Nikula
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote: I've applied this cleanup on top, however. Cheers, Rusty. Subject: param: check for tainting before calling set op. This means every set op doesn't need to call it, and it can move into params.c. Much better, thanks. I was

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] module: add support for unsafe, tainting parameters

2014-08-20 Thread Rusty Russell
Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch writes: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote: Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com writes: This is a generic version of Daniel's patch [1] letting us have unsafe module parameters (experimental, debugging, testing, etc.)

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] module: add support for unsafe, tainting parameters

2014-08-13 Thread Rusty Russell
Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com 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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] module: add support for unsafe, tainting parameters

2014-08-13 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote: Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com 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