Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Thu Jul 09 2009 - 03:21:32 EST


On Thu 2009-07-09 14:27:39, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> tridge@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> You are talking different thing than patch. Please stop it.

Uff, the patch is obviously trash -- takes working code, replaces it
with known broken code -- so some justification is neccessary.

Outside of U.S., the patch makes obviously no sense.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/