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 13:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20090504201814.GN6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <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> <1241453259.20170.17.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <20090504164250.GF6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504181727.GH8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Dave Kleikamp , Matthew Wilcox , tridge@samba.org, Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:47298 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752588AbZEDUST (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 16:18:19 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n44KDPrj000491 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 16:13:25 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n44KIJLl153094 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 16:18:19 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n44KIFkx016960 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 16:18:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504181727.GH8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:17:27PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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. Hmmm... Sorry you feel that way. I had hoped to avoid having you deal directly with lawyers, but perhaps that is the way that it must be. If so, welcome to my world. > 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. This would not be the first time I have made an ass of myself in public, and if things go as they normally do, it would not be the last.` Unfortunately, I do not believe that this problem is going to go away on its own. Thanx, Paul