RE: [PATCH 16/22] xlink-ipc: Add xlink ipc driver

[Gross, Mark]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:14 AM
> To: Kelly, Seamus <seamus.kelly@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>; mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> markgross@xxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxx;
> damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx; dragan.cvetic@xxxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx;
> leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx; palmerdabbelt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx; peng.fan@xxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ryan Carnaghi <ryan.r.carnaghi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] xlink-ipc: Add xlink ipc driver
> 
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:33:02AM +0000, Kelly, Seamus wrote:
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Must be something Seamus is using that knows when emails go outside.  I would have caught this on our internal mock reviews otherwise.

> 
> Now deleted!
> 
> This footer is incompatible with Linux kernel development, please remove it in
> order for us to read your emails and do anything with them.
Yes, I know.

> 
> I can't believe that Intel still has this problem, after all of these years...
I'll add a warning about this in my training collateral and have all engineers I work with on this type of upstreaming send a test email to markgross@xxxxxxxxxx so I can see if they have such legal clauses appended to out-bound email that is not visible to internal recipients.  I'll fix this.

Sorry, 

--mark