From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758064AbZEDQI0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 12:08:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757274AbZEDQHz (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 12:07:55 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:50926 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757578AbZEDQHx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option From: Dave Kleikamp To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Matthew Wilcox , "Paul E. McKenney" , tridge@samba.org, Al Viro , Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , LKML In-Reply-To: References: <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090503225616.GD8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090504063431.GK7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504124129.GL7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504124433.GW8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504130638.GN7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504132119.GX8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504150834.GZ8822@parisc-linux.org> <1241451391.20170.12.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 11:07:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1241453259.20170.17.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 08:59 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dave Kleikamp writes: > > > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 09:08 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:39:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:21:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> > > Bringing the patch to a public mailing list is a waste of time until > >> > > there's a reliable description of the problem you're trying to solve. > >> > > >> > Please see the original patch. It does describes what it is doing. > >> > >> "What", but not "Why". Which is only acceptable in GNU changelogs ;-) > > > > Please understand the "Why" is a sticky subject that we can't and won't > > discuss in a public forum. However, we believe the maintainers > > understand the "Why" of it well enough to consider whether or not to > > include such a patch. The "What" should be pretty clear from the patch > > description. The "How" is a technical question that can be discussed > > here. > > If the "Why" can not be discussed then you don't have a "Why" you can > stand behind. That's for the maintainers to decide. If they agree it has worth, maybe it's a good idea to answer "How". > If you don't have a "Why" you can stand behind the "Why" sucks and does > not appear to be an appropriate justification for a patch applied to > a public piece of code. You're entitled to your opinion. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center