RE: Paragon NTFSv3 (was Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1)

[Konstantin Komarov]

> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 8:24 PM
> To: Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Leonidas P. Papadakos <papadakospan@xxxxxxxxx>; zajec5@xxxxxxxxx; Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>; Greg Kroah-
> Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Paragon NTFSv3 (was Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1)
> 
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 8:55 AM Konstantin Komarov
> <almaz.alexandrovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We've just sent the 27th patch series which fixes to the buildability against
> > current linux-next. And we'll need several days to prepare a proper pull request
> > before sending it to you.
> 
> Well, I won't pull until the next merge window opens anyway (about a
> month away). But it would be good to have your tree in linux-next for
> at least a couple of weeks before that happens.
> 
> Added Stephen to the participants list as a heads-up for him - letting
> him know where to fetch the git tree from will allow that to happen if
> you haven't done so already.
> 

Thanks for this clarification, Linus!
Stephen, please find the tree here:
https://github.com/Paragon-Software-Group/linux-ntfs3.git
It is the fork from 5.14-rc5 tag with ntfs3 patches applied.
Also, the latest changes
- fix some generic/XYZ xfstests, which were discussed
with Theodore, Darrick and others
- updates the MAINTAINERS with mailing list (also added to CC here) and scm tree link.

Please let me know if additional changes requred to get fetched into linux-next.

> The one other thing I do want when there's big new pieces like this
> being added is to ask you to make sure that everything is signed-off
> properly, and that there is no internal confusion about the GPLv2
> inside Paragon, and that any legal people etc are all aware of this
> all and are on board. The last thing we want to see is some "oops, we
> didn't mean to do this" brouhaha six months later.
> 
> I doubt that's an issue, considering how public this all has been, but
> I just wanted to mention it just to be very obvious about it.
> 
>                   Linus
Indeed, there is no internal confusion about the GPLv2 and we mean to make this contribution.

Best regards,
Konstantin.