diff mbox series

[v4,12/13] exfat: add exfat in fs/Kconfig and fs/Makefile

Message ID 20191121052618.31117-13-namjae.jeon@samsung.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series add the latest exfat driver | expand

Commit Message

Namjae Jeon Nov. 21, 2019, 5:26 a.m. UTC 
Add exfat in fs/Kconfig and fs/Makefile.

Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
---
 fs/Kconfig  | 3 ++-
 fs/Makefile | 1 +
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Valdis Kl ē tnieks Nov. 24, 2019, 2:09 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:52:21 +0800, kbuild test robot said:
> From: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>
> fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool

The warning and fix themselves look OK..

> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>

But somehow, this strikes me as fishy.

Or more correctly, it looks reasonable to me, but seems to clash with the
Developer's Certificate of Origin as described in submitting-patches.rst, which
makes the assumption that the patch submitter is a carbon-based life form. In
particular, I doubt the kbuild test robot can understand the thing, and I have
*no* idea who/what ends up owning the GPLv2 copyright on software automatically
created by other software.

Or are we OK on this?
Greg KH Nov. 24, 2019, 6:59 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 09:09:18PM -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:52:21 +0800, kbuild test robot said:
> > From: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >
> > fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool
> 
> The warning and fix themselves look OK..
> 
> > Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> 
> But somehow, this strikes me as fishy.
> 
> Or more correctly, it looks reasonable to me, but seems to clash with the
> Developer's Certificate of Origin as described in submitting-patches.rst, which
> makes the assumption that the patch submitter is a carbon-based life form. In
> particular, I doubt the kbuild test robot can understand the thing, and I have
> *no* idea who/what ends up owning the GPLv2 copyright on software automatically
> created by other software.
> 
> Or are we OK on this?

We are ok with this, it's been happening for years and we talked about
it with lawyers when it first happened.  So nothing to really worry
about here.

thanks,

greg k-h
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
index 7b623e9fc1b0..5edd87eb5c13 100644
--- a/fs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/Kconfig
@@ -139,9 +139,10 @@  endmenu
 endif # BLOCK
 
 if BLOCK
-menu "DOS/FAT/NT Filesystems"
+menu "DOS/FAT/EXFAT/NT Filesystems"
 
 source "fs/fat/Kconfig"
+source "fs/exfat/Kconfig"
 source "fs/ntfs/Kconfig"
 
 endmenu
diff --git a/fs/Makefile b/fs/Makefile
index 1148c555c4d3..4358dda56b1e 100644
--- a/fs/Makefile
+++ b/fs/Makefile
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS)		+= hugetlbfs/
 obj-$(CONFIG_CODA_FS)		+= coda/
 obj-$(CONFIG_MINIX_FS)		+= minix/
 obj-$(CONFIG_FAT_FS)		+= fat/
+obj-$(CONFIG_EXFAT)		+= exfat/
 obj-$(CONFIG_BFS_FS)		+= bfs/
 obj-$(CONFIG_ISO9660_FS)	+= isofs/
 obj-$(CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS)	+= hfsplus/ # Before hfs to find wrapped HFS+