From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 54995 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2018 15:16:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 54984 invoked by uid 89); 19 Sep 2018 15:16:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=representative, H*Ad:U*palves X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:16:56 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E1483167E54; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055D62010D97; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix /proc pathname sizes on Solaris To: Rainer Orth , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <238c5f57-7f23-1e34-fe52-a5235a8a59d7@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 On 09/17/2018 03:11 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > * AFAIK Oracle has a corporate copyright assignment on file, so the > patches should be covered. It is my understanding that an assignment alone is not sufficient. The patches should be willfully contributed somehow too. The most common form is by the author or representative contributing or disclaiming it on the list of course. > Even if that were not the case, this one > and the next are certainly below the 15-line limit for non-trivial > patches. That certainly helps. Thanks, Pedro Alves