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: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:10:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20090504161024.GC6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090504063431.GK7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504124129.GL7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504124433.GW8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504130638.GN7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504132119.GX8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504150834.GZ8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504153815.GB6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504155505.GA8822@parisc-linux.org> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , tridge@samba.org, Al Viro , Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , LKML To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:39216 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbZEDQPn (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 12:15:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504155505.GA8822@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:55:06AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:08:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:39:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:21:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > Bringing the patch to a public mailing list is a waste of time until > > > > > there's a reliable description of the problem you're trying to solve. > > > > > > > > Please see the original patch. It does describes what it is doing. > > > > > > "What", but not "Why". Which is only acceptable in GNU changelogs ;-) > > > > ;-) > > > > > Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre > > > > Given your affiliation, you should have access to people with whom > > you can have a meaningful conversation on the non-technical issues, > > but without putting the Linux community at risk. > > Indeed I do have access to lawyers. But what use is that? I could > presumably get an opinion for myself that I would not then be able to > share outside of Intel. I am glad you understand our situation, then! ;-) > Can't you get the SFLC to issue a public legal opinion for you? Or maybe > the Linux Foundation? I have no clue whether this would work, but it is certainly worth exploring. Thank you for the tip!!! Thanx, Paul