From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:45524 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730267AbfH0SrM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:47:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:47:09 +0200 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test for failure to unlock inode after chgrp fails with EDQUOT Message-ID: <20190827184709.GB2987@kroah.com> References: <20190827041816.GB1037528@magnolia> <20190827150451.GY1037350@magnolia> <20190827152648.GB534@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190827152648.GB534@kroah.com> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Eryu Guan , Christoph Hellwig , xfs , Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , Salvatore Bonaccorso , Security Officers , Debian Security Team , benjamin.moody@gmail.com, Ben Hutchings , fstests List-ID: On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > 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... Now submitted: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190827172519.GA28849@kroah.com/T/#u