On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
> observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
> Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
It might be that
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> How does
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
> change your personal opinion?
According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
mean that the eXFAT patents are
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 08:37:42PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> I have an out-of-tree driver for the exfat file system that I beaten into
> shape
> for upstreaming. The driver works, and passes sparse and checkpatch (except
> for a number of line-too-long complaints).
>
> Do you want this
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:27:38PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
Note also that some maintainers have work flow that deliberately smash
the date (i.e., because they are using a system such as guilt),
so if you are depending on the submitted timestamp, it's going to
break on you.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:05:53PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
If multiple people are submitting identical changes, then the one that
is applied is the one the maintainer sees first, which will most
likely be determined by which one hit their inbox / list first. Nobody
is going to look at
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:26:21AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Does this sound reasonable?
Sounds reasonable to me, care to send a patch to do so?
I can do that, but I was waiting for Andras, Peng or Nikita to let me
now if there was something I was missing or not. I'm pretty sure it's
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:06:58PM +, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
The Lustre cfs_get_random_bytes() incorporates (via cfs_rand()) a seed
which
also hashes in the addresses from any network interfaces that are
configured.
Conversely, cfs_rand() also is seeded at startup from
