Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test for failure to unlock inode after chgrp fails with EDQUOT

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Darrick,
> 
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:13:19AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > +++ b/tests/generic/719
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
> > > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-newer
> > > 
> > > Please run scripts/spdxcheck.py on that file and consult the licensing
> > > documentation.
> > 
> > -or-later, sorry.
> > 
> > So .... now that everyone who wanted these SPDX identifiers have spread
> > "GPL-2.0+" around the kernel and related projects (xfsprogs, xfstests)
> > just in time for SPDX 3.0 to deprecate the "+" syntax, what are we
> > supposed to do?  Another treewide change to fiddle with SPDX syntax?
> > Can we just put:
> > 
> > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > 
> > in the LICENSES/GPL-2.0 file like the kernel does?
> 
> The kernel is not going to change that because we have started with this
> before the s/+/-or-later/ happened. Tools need to read both.
>  
> > Is that even going to stay that way?  I thought I heard that Greg was
> > working on phasing out the "2.0+" tags since SPDX deprecated that?
> 
> For new stuff we should use -or-later methinks.

For new stuff, if you wish to be "kind" to some community members, we
should use "-or-later" and "-only".  But as you say, both are fine.

And no, I am NOT working on phasing out any SPDX tags for the older
stuff.  Personally, I like the older ones.

> Yeah, we should add a MAINTAINERS entry for LICENSES. Greg and myself are
> going to be volunteered I fear.

Yeah, I figured it was only a matter of time.  Let me go create an entry
given that we already have git tree for it in linux-next for a while
now...

thanks,

greg k-h