On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:04:36AM -0400, James Lentini wrote: > > >On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Bernhard Fischer wrote: > >>On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:39:59PM -0400, James Lentini wrote: >>> >>>Hi Bernhard, >>> >>>The changes look fine. Why the additional copyright? I need to be able >>>to explain it to my legal department. >> >>My legaleeze states that whatever i do during work-time is contributed >>to work and whatever is related to work done during leasure time has to >>be attributed to /me _at_ _least_. As that snippet (which was a >>test-balloon >>for that category) clearly was done in my spare time, i'm forced to >>attribute it accordingly :-/ >> >>Does that answer your question satisfactorily? > >Thanks Bernhard. That makes sense to me. My legal inquired about the >"all rights reserved" qualifier. All the copyrights I found in the >OpenIB tree (including NetApp's) use that language. I'll run this by >them. > As rev. 2934 i do not see this patch applied. To recap, it removed some unneeded local variables (which my compiler wasn't smart enough to eleminate on it's own -- gcc-4.0 and gcc-HEAD) and simplified some conditionals and branches.
Back then, i only submitted the changes to dapl_cookie.c to see if such kind of code simplifications would be accepted or not. James, can you please elaborate why the patch was rejected? Thank you, Bernhard _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
