From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:37:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <524f69650905011318m34e0027dt57877d225b3fe2da@mail.gmail.com> <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , Andrew Tridgell , LKML To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:45230 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751480AbZEBBha (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 21:37:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:01:09PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:18:20PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > > For those manufacturers who who would like to disable > > creation of long file names, but allow reading long file names, > > and handle FAT32 on disk format and maximum sizes, it seems > > reasonable to give them a simple configure option for it. It is > > harder, and less effective, to make the corresponding change > > to modify the mount helper and kernel code to add > > a new mount option, because it can be bypassed trivially > > at the command line (ie having to "force" mount to pass a "nolongfilename" > > mount option, would be harder than a simple kernel configure option) > > Steve, can you please stop the bullshitting? > > >From the complete lack of technical arguments it's pretty obvious that > this seems to be some FUD fallout from the MS vs TomTom patent lawsuite. > > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how much of a threat it is. But either > the case gets shot down by showing prior art and everything is fine, or > we indeed are in deep trouble and should remove it completely. Given > the Cc list on here IBM seems to have some legal opinion on it, so can > we please see it and discuss what we want to with all cards on the > table? Hello, Christoph! Hmmm... Both Tridge and Dave have Signed-off-by on the original patch, and Steve has Acked-by, Mingming has Cc, and Dave is on the From list rather than the Cc list, so I have to guess that there is a good chance that you are talking about me. ;-) However, as far as I know, none of us are lawyers, and LKML is definitely a technical rather than a legal forum, so we really do need to stick to technical topics. I understand that this might be a bit frustrating to you. On the other hand, I for one much prefer being in a forum restricted to technical topics than to be in those places designed to handle legal topics! I suspect that this is not the answer that you were looking for, and I do apologize for any disappointment, but this does happen to be the answer that I have. Thanx, Paul