From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: update licence for network headers Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: <3574356.e36fbgbura@xps> References: <20171208102830.2817-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1018d643-eb39-cd23-4094-9ae2a4bcd860@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Olivier MATZ , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dev@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger , Trishan de Lanerolle To: Hemant Agrawal Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF881D90 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:58:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 14/12/2017 12:33, Hemant Agrawal: > Thomas, > Before I rework, > What is your opinion w.r.t tooling in DPDK w.r.t SPDX. > > I saw a patch for checkpatch in Linux, which will also check for SPDX > presence for any new file, however this patch only checked first two > line for SPDX presence. (currently it is nak for other reasons) > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10053699/ > > If it makes easy for us, we can use the SPDX as first/second line > convention. I agree we should follow the convention chosen in Linux, because we may use the same tools. Is it already decided for Linux? Can we influence the decision for Linux?