From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:11:37 -0700
Message-ID: <20090504161137.GE6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090503225616.GD8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <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> <1241451391.20170.12.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <m14ow0hnal.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, tridge@samba.org,
	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
	Ogawa Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:39806 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757944AbZEDQLn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 May 2009 12:11:43 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m14ow0hnal.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:59:14AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 09:08 -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 ;-)
> >
> > Please understand the "Why" is a sticky subject that we can't and won't
> > discuss in a public forum.  However, we believe the maintainers
> > understand the "Why" of it well enough to consider whether or not to
> > include such a patch.  The "What" should be pretty clear from the patch
> > description.  The "How" is a technical question that can be discussed
> > here.
> 
> If the "Why" can not be discussed then you don't have a "Why" you can
> stand behind.

Nice try.

> If you don't have a "Why" you can stand behind the "Why" sucks and does
> not appear to be an appropriate justification for a patch applied to
> a public piece of code.

Again, nice try.

							Thanx, Paul