All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pebolle@tiscali.nl (Paul Bolle)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] dma: Add Xilinx AXI Central Direct Memory Access Engine driver support
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:15:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433837720.16887.42.camel@x220> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55769132.6070601@monstr.eu>

On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 08:10 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> Also sort of checking for this will be great. Julia?
> > 
> > If this requires checking the contents of comment, Coccinelle currently 
> > can't help with that.  Perhaps an idea would be to just do a grep on the 
> > file.  So if I find MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2") and then grepping for "either 
> > vresion 2" gives success, then there is a problem?  It's obviously not 
> > foolproof, but perhaps it could be helpful.
> 
> Having some sort of checking somewhere will be great. checkpatch?
> zero-day testing system?

Mistakes I've seen made since I started checking this stuff (a few
months ago):
- typos in the license ident, say "GPLv2", "GPL V2", or "BSD": generates
a warning when module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this
wrong. A test in checkpatch for these typos was submitted a while ago,
but it never got added;
- not adding MODULE_LICENSE() to a module: also generates a warning when
module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this wrong;
- adding MODULE_LICENSE() to built-in only code: pointless at best, and
annoying for reviewers ("Hey, did the submitter intend to write built-in
only code or modular code?");
- using "Dual BSD/GPL" but not a trace of the BSD license blurb in
sight, while adding that blurb is one of the very few requirements this
license actually has;
- license mismatch, say comment blurb states "GPL v2 (or later)" but
MODULE_LICENSE() ident states "GPL v2" only (or vice versa): very easy
mistake to make, happens once or twice a week.  

Did I miss anything in that list?

I'm afraid that most of the above can only be caught reliably by
attention to detail by submitters and reviewers. That's a pity, because
checking for that stuff is about as boring as it gets. (What does that
say about me?)

Thanks,


Paul Bolle

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: monstr@monstr.eu
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Kedareswara rao Appana <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com>,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, vinod.koul@intel.com,
	michal.simek@xilinx.com, soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com,
	appanad@xilinx.com, punnaia@xilinx.com,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Srikanth Thokala <sthokal@xilinx.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dma: Add Xilinx AXI Central Direct Memory Access Engine driver support
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:15:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433837720.16887.42.camel@x220> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55769132.6070601@monstr.eu>

On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 08:10 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> Also sort of checking for this will be great. Julia?
> > 
> > If this requires checking the contents of comment, Coccinelle currently 
> > can't help with that.  Perhaps an idea would be to just do a grep on the 
> > file.  So if I find MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2") and then grepping for "either 
> > vresion 2" gives success, then there is a problem?  It's obviously not 
> > foolproof, but perhaps it could be helpful.
> 
> Having some sort of checking somewhere will be great. checkpatch?
> zero-day testing system?

Mistakes I've seen made since I started checking this stuff (a few
months ago):
- typos in the license ident, say "GPLv2", "GPL V2", or "BSD": generates
a warning when module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this
wrong. A test in checkpatch for these typos was submitted a while ago,
but it never got added;
- not adding MODULE_LICENSE() to a module: also generates a warning when
module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this wrong;
- adding MODULE_LICENSE() to built-in only code: pointless at best, and
annoying for reviewers ("Hey, did the submitter intend to write built-in
only code or modular code?");
- using "Dual BSD/GPL" but not a trace of the BSD license blurb in
sight, while adding that blurb is one of the very few requirements this
license actually has;
- license mismatch, say comment blurb states "GPL v2 (or later)" but
MODULE_LICENSE() ident states "GPL v2" only (or vice versa): very easy
mistake to make, happens once or twice a week.  

Did I miss anything in that list?

I'm afraid that most of the above can only be caught reliably by
attention to detail by submitters and reviewers. That's a pity, because
checking for that stuff is about as boring as it gets. (What does that
say about me?)

Thanks,


Paul Bolle


  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-09  8:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-21 17:07 [PATCH v4 2/2] dma: Add Xilinx AXI Central Direct Memory Access Engine driver support Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-05-21 17:07 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-05-22 10:30 ` Paul Bolle
2015-05-22 10:30   ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-08 11:20   ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-06-08 11:20     ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-06-09  6:03   ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  6:03     ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  6:10     ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09  6:10       ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09  7:09       ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  7:09         ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  8:15         ` Paul Bolle [this message]
2015-06-09  8:15           ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09 10:05           ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09 10:05             ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09 10:41           ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09 10:41             ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09 11:59             ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09 11:59               ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09 12:12               ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09 12:12                 ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09 12:24                 ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09 12:24                   ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09 12:39                   ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09 12:39                     ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  7:21     ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09  7:21       ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09  7:27       ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  7:27         ` Michal Simek
2015-06-09  8:08         ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09  8:08           ` Julia Lawall
2015-06-09  8:27           ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-09  8:27             ` Paul Bolle
2015-06-03  6:22 ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-06-03  6:22   ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1433837720.16887.42.camel@x220 \
    --to=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.