From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757210AbZEDOjh (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 10:39:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754365AbZEDOj1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 10:39:27 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:48583 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754799AbZEDOj0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 10:39:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:39:19 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , tridge@samba.org, Al Viro , Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Message-ID: <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <524f69650905011318m34e0027dt57877d225b3fe2da@mail.gmail.com> <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090503225616.GD8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504132119.GX8822@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:21:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:06:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:44:33AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:41:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > I am not sure that I correctly parsed these three sentences, but the > > > > justification should be pretty clear to anyone who has been paying any > > > > attention at all to recent industry news. > > > > > > I think if there's one thing less reliable than an engineer's opinion > > > on a patent, it's a journalist's opinion on a patent lawsuit. > > > > And hence discussing these sorts of non-technical issues on LKML is kind > > of pointless, you are saying? I certainly cannot disagree with that! > > 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. > All this innuendo is terribly unbecoming. Ack that!!! Thanx, Paul