Re: [PATCH] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown

[Dave Hansen]

On 1/5/23 06:38, Greg KH wrote:
> But hey, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer which is why I keep insisting
> that one from Intel actually read over this submission and sign-off on
> it to verify that they agree with all of this.

I guess I'm still confused what is triggering the lawyer requirement.
Last time, you asked:

> You are taking source from a non-Intel developer under a different
> license and adding copyright and different license information to it.
> Because of all of that, I have the requirement that I want to know that
> Intel legal has vetted all of this and agrees with the conclusions that
> you all are stating.

To break that down, the earlier submission[1] had:

 * Original developer from a different company
 * Non-GPL original license
 * Relicensing
 * Addition of a new copyright

I can see all of those thing adding up together to trigger the higher
bar of having a lawyer sign off.  It looks like Aaron took that issue
list and tried to improve on it.  This new submission has:

 * Original developer from a different company

Is there anything else in this submission which is triggering the lawyer
review requirement?

If not, I'd be happy to hack up a Documentation patch to describe this
review requirement and make it clear to everyone.  I've gotten traction
with my colleagues in the past once things were fully and clearly
documented.  I'm hoping history repeats itself here.

1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y3L2Jx3Kx9q8Dv55@ziqianlu-desk1/