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

[James Lentini]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

> 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?

It wasn't rejected. With the back and forth on the copyright notice, I 
thought I was waiting for you to reply. Sorry about that. I'll dust 
off the patch and review it again.