On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
>> > I may be right, its hard
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
>> > I may be right, its hard
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
> > I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
> > of the
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
> > I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
> > of the
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
> I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
> of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
> continue
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
> I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
> of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
> continue
It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
continue to side recommending with the MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag even on
It would seem I did follow up with a v3 patch and Rusty noted that although
I may be right, its hard to care [0]. But of relevance here is again if one
of the MODULE_LICENSE() dual tags should be used or the GPL tag. I'll
continue to side recommending with the MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag even on
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 05:00:25PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:51:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > That seems to indicate that we've had already Pos
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 05:00:25PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:51:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > That seems to indicate that we've had already Pos
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
> > to me recently. While doing some quick of digging arou
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
> > to me recently. While doing some quick of digging arou
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:51:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > That seems to indicate that we've had already PostgreSQL licensed code on
> > > Linux since Kent's addition of bcache to Linux
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:51:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > That seems to indicate that we've had already PostgreSQL licensed code on
> > > Linux since Kent's addition of bcache to Linux
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > That seems to indicate that we've had already PostgreSQL licensed code on
> > Linux since Kent's addition of bcache to Linux in 2013. The portion of code
> > is rather small though, to me it seems to co
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:26:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > That seems to indicate that we've had already PostgreSQL licensed code on
> > Linux since Kent's addition of bcache to Linux in 2013. The portion of code
> > is rather small though, to me it seems to co
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
> to me recently. While doing some quick of digging around I found code
> already under such license it seems:
>
> The file drivers/md/bc
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
> to me recently. While doing some quick of digging around I found code
> already under such license it seems:
>
> The file drivers/md/bc
The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
to me recently. While doing some quick of digging around I found code
already under such license it seems:
The file drivers/md/bcache/util.c has:
cafe563591446 (Kent Overstreet 2013-03-23 16:11:31 -0700 318
The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
to me recently. While doing some quick of digging around I found code
already under such license it seems:
The file drivers/md/bcache/util.c has:
cafe563591446 (Kent Overstreet 2013-03-23 16:11:31 -0700 318
20 matches
Mail list logo
