On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > But... when yesterday Al showed his demo patchset I probably interpreted his > reply the wrong way and thought that since he spent time for the demo he > wanted to put this to completion on his own. > > Now I see that you are interpreting his message as an invite to use them to > shorten the time... > > Furthermore I'm not sure about how I should credit him. Should I merely add a > "Suggested-by:" tag or more consistent "Co-authored-by: Al Viro <...>"? Since > he did so much I'd rather the second but I need his permission. What, for sysv part? It's already in mainline; for minixfs and ufs, if you want to do those - whatever you want, I'd probably go for "modelled after sysv series in 6.2" - "Suggested-by" in those would suffice... > @Al, > > Can I really proceed with *your* work? What should the better suited tag be to > credit you for the patches? > > If you can reply today or at least by Friday, I'll pick your demo patchset, > put it to completion, make the patches and test them with (x)fstests on a > QEMU/KVM x86_32 bit VM, with 6GB RAM, running an HIGHMEM64GB enabled kernel. Frankly, ext2 patchset had been more along the lines of "here's what untangling the calling conventions in ext2 would probably look like" than anything else. If you are willing to test (and review) that sucker and it turns out to be OK, I'll be happy to slap your tested-by on those during rebase and feed them to Jan...
