From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:59:28 -0600 Message-ID: <20090502015927.GJ8822@parisc-linux.org> References: <524f69650905011318m34e0027dt57877d225b3fe2da@mail.gmail.com> <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , Andrew Tridgell , LKML To: "Paul E. McKenney" Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:40339 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbZEBB73 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 21:59:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:01:09PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >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! So what's the purely technical argument for including this patch? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."