lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions
    From
    Hi Alan,

    Can you explain what standard you think should be applied to patent
    workaround patches for them to be acceptable? I'd like to know if
    there is the possibility of us finding some agreement in the future or
    not.

    For example, some possibilities might be:

    1) no patent workarounds allowed in upstream kernel at all

    2) the workaround must be shown to have 100% compatibility with all
    current and possible future devices

    3) the workaround must be shown to have a high degree of
    compatibility with all the devices we have available to test with

    4) the workaround must have the highest degree of compatibility that
    we can achieve with the most used devices, but some degree of
    interoperability problems are OK for less used devices.

    There are lots of possible levels in between these of course. I don't
    think you are advocating (1) or (2), as you seem happier with the "no
    long name creation" patch from May.

    I also know you want whatever is done to be a different filesystem
    name.

    I'm advocating (4) as a reasonable standard, although I'd like to
    achieve (3) if we can. Whether we can actually achieve (3) will depend
    on the results of further testing (see my messages to Jan on that for
    example).

    I apologise if you don't think this is a reasonable way to phrase the
    question. As you are the most vocal opponent of the patch, I'd like to
    better understand what it would take for you to find a patch
    acceptable.

    Cheers, Tridge


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-09 06:29    [W:4.331 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site