> 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.
