Re: unexpected taint message

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 08:13 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:

> > Hmm. I wish OOT didn't disable lockdep, we do a lot of development with
> > modules OOT because the turnaround is faster/easier (for not so
> > experienced developers). Worst case we can patch it out of the base
> > kernel I guess...
> 
> Me too. Now I understand John's patch entitled "[RFC] modpost: add option to 
> allow external modules to avoid taint". I doubt that it will be allowed 
> upstream, but I think that I will add it as a local commit.

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

--- wireless-testing.orig/kernel/panic.c	2011-12-10 17:32:26.000000000 +0100
+++ wireless-testing/kernel/panic.c	2011-12-16 15:19:49.000000000 +0100
@@ -240,8 +240,16 @@ void add_taint(unsigned flag)
 	 * Also we want to keep up lockdep for staging development and
 	 * post-warning case.
 	 */
-	if (flag != TAINT_CRAP && flag != TAINT_WARN && __debug_locks_off())
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint\n");
+	switch (flag) {
+	case TAINT_CRAP:
+	case TAINT_WARN:
+	case TAINT_OOT_MODULE:
+		break;
+	default:
+		if (__debug_locks_off())
+			printk(KERN_WARNING
+			       "Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint\n");
+	}
 
 	set_bit(flag, &tainted_mask);
 }