cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c

[Scott Long]

Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
>> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>> Stephan Uphoff wrote:
>>>>>      
>>>>>> ups         2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  FreeBSD src repository
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Modified files:
>>>>>>    sys/amd64/amd64      pmap.c 
>>>>>>    sys/i386/i386        pmap.c 
>>>>>>  Log:
>>>>>>  Modify TLB invalidation handling.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  Reviewed by:    alc@, peter@
>>>>>>  MFC after:      1 week
>>>>>>        
>>>>> Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it
>>>>> was done?
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>> I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes.
>>>>    
>>> Alas, we don't live in an ideal world.  If we did, our commit
>>> messages would always follow the well-known guideline:
>>>
>>> 0. Tell the essence of the change.
>>> 1. Give the reason for the change.
>>> 2. Explain the change unless it's trivial.
>>>
>>>  
>> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-)
> 
> Was the change based on a document under NDA?  Then this case raises
> an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer
> is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under
> NDA?  Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a
> typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've
> never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say
> that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody
> can RTFS. :-)
> 

Wow, that was painful to read.  NDAs that specifically allow source
code licensing and distribution are quite common.  They even get written
and reviewed by lawyers! =-)

Scott