From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:17:27 +0100
Message-ID: <20090504181727.GH8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <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> <1241453259.20170.17.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <m1k54wal0j.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> <20090504164250.GF6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, tridge@samba.org,
	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>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:58402 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752778AbZEDSRk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 May 2009 14:17:40 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090504164250.GF6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:42:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Matthew's idea of checking with SFLC seems to me to have some merit.
> I am looking into this from my end.  Of course, you and Al and Christoph
> have just as much standing to ask SFLC as do I, and perhaps more.

OK, enough.  Any further communication on that topic should be filtered
through lawyers, since you apparently refuse to provide details of rationale
for your changes due to some kind of legal issues.

Whether you have a reason for such behaviour or not, continuing that thread
is obviously pointless.  If you want a useful review, it is up to you to
figure out the procedure that
	(a) would allow answering such questions when asked by those who
will be reviewing it
	(b) satisfy whatever legal concerns you might have about (a)
	(c) satisfy whatever legal concerns said reviewers might have
regarding the procedure in question, whatever that procedure turns out
to be.
	(d) satisfy whatever legal concerns employers of said reviewers
might have.

Until then all you are doing is busily making an ass of yourself in public
and possibly compounding whatever legal issues you might have.