From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/9] Revert "scripts: mandate that new files have SPDX-License-Identifier"
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 14:59:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250515135936.86760-2-berrange@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250515135936.86760-1-berrange@redhat.com>
This reverts commit fa4d79c64dae03ffa269e42e21822453856618b7.
The logic in this commit was flawed in two critical ways
* It always failed to report SPDX validation on the last newly
added file. IOW, it only worked if at least 2 new files were
added in a commit
* If an existing file change, followed a new file change, in
the commit and the existing file context/changed lines
included SPDX-License-Identifier, it would incorrectly
associate this with the previous newly added file.
Simply reverting this commit will make it significantly easier to
understand the improved logic in the following commit.
Reported-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 30 ------------------------------
1 file changed, 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 365892de04..d355c0dad5 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1442,8 +1442,6 @@ sub process {
my $in_imported_file = 0;
my $in_no_imported_file = 0;
my $non_utf8_charset = 0;
- my $expect_spdx = 0;
- my $expect_spdx_file;
our @report = ();
our $cnt_lines = 0;
@@ -1681,34 +1679,6 @@ sub process {
WARN("added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
}
-# All new files should have a SPDX-License-Identifier tag
- if ($line =~ /^new file mode\s*\d+\s*$/) {
- if ($expect_spdx) {
- if ($expect_spdx_file =~
- /\.(c|h|py|pl|sh|json|inc|Makefile)$/) {
- # source code files MUST have SPDX license declared
- ERROR("New file '$expect_spdx_file' requires " .
- "'SPDX-License-Identifier'");
- } else {
- # Other files MAY have SPDX license if appropriate
- WARN("Does new file '$expect_spdx_file' need " .
- "'SPDX-License-Identifier'?");
- }
- }
- $expect_spdx = 1;
- $expect_spdx_file = undef;
- } elsif ($expect_spdx) {
- $expect_spdx_file = $realfile unless
- defined $expect_spdx_file;
-
- # SPDX tags may occurr in comments which were
- # stripped from '$line', so use '$rawline'
- if ($rawline =~ /SPDX-License-Identifier/) {
- $expect_spdx = 0;
- $expect_spdx_file = undef;
- }
- }
-
# Check SPDX-License-Identifier references a permitted license
if ($rawline =~ m,SPDX-License-Identifier: (.*?)(\*/)?\s*$,) {
&checkspdx($realfile, $1);
--
2.49.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-15 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-15 13:59 [PATCH v3 0/9] scripts/checkpatch: fix SPDX-License-Identifier detection Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 13:59 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2025-05-19 12:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] Revert "scripts: mandate that new files have SPDX-License-Identifier" Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] scripts/checkpatch.pl: fix various indentation mistakes Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:12 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-19 16:08 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 16:27 ` Alex Bennée
2025-05-19 16:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 16:39 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] scripts/checkpatch: introduce tracking of file start/end Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:17 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] scripts/checkpatch: use new hook for ACPI test data check Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 16:55 ` Cédric Le Goater
2025-05-19 12:29 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-19 16:21 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] scripts/checkpatch: use new hook for file permissions check Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:19 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] scripts/checkpatch: expand pattern for matching makefiles Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 16:20 ` Cédric Le Goater
2025-05-19 12:22 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] scripts/checkpatch: use new hook for MAINTAINERS update check Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:21 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] scripts/checkpatch: reimplement mandate for SPDX-License-Identifier Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:21 ` Peter Maydell
2025-05-15 13:59 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] scripts/checkpatch: reject license boilerplate on new files Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 15:42 ` Cédric Le Goater
2025-05-15 16:05 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-15 16:06 ` Cédric Le Goater
2025-05-15 16:19 ` Cédric Le Goater
2025-05-15 16:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-19 12:41 ` Peter Maydell
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=20250515135936.86760-2-berrange@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=clg@kaod.org \
--cc=clg@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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.