[openib-general] Re: [PATCH][dapl] cleanup dapl_cookie

[Bernhard Fischer]

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