Jon Masters wrote:On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:51 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:+1
> Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
> good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
> untainted kernel was found.
I disagree with this. It's useful to have a "we've seen this before,
and every time, it was tainted with xyz module" datapoint, especially
if no untainted copies of that oops turn up.
In fact, that's even more useful in many cases, if it helps demonstrate
that the oops is associated with a particular buggy binary driver. I can
see a lot of potentially interesting statistics coming from that too.
-1 :-)
I don't care at all what this xyz module does or does not do by and in
itself.