On 27.08.2013 21:59, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> Makes sense... the kernel is "tainted" after an oops. I was distracted
> by thoughts about software with dubious provenance.
>
> The first kernel oops (that taints the kernel) is documented here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001
Makes sense... the kernel is "tainted" after an oops. I was distracted
by thoughts about software with dubious provenance.
The first kernel oops (that taints the kernel) is documented here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001806
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
T
On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
>
> What does "Tainted" mean two lines above?
There's been a kernel oops prior these entries, and due to the oops there's
uncertainty about the cause of subsequent problems. So you pretty much ignore
anything after the kernel is tainted and
This is recorded in my system journal (booting the iso install image from a USB
flash drive):
Aug 26 16:11:38 localhost kernel: ACPI Warning: \_SB_.PCI0.P0P1.PEGP._DSM:
Argument #4 type mismatch - Found [Integer], ACPI requires [Package]
(20130517/nsarguments-95)
Aug 26 16:11:38 localhost kerne
