Re: [PATCH 04/21] eeprom: at24: use SPDX identifier instead of GPL boiler-plate

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>]

2018-03-19 16:38 GMT+01:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2018-03-19 13:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>:
>> > On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>:
>> >>> Also, use a // style comment for the SPDX line in C files.
>> >>
>> >> I'm seeing both /* */ and // style comments used for SPDX headers - is
>> >> there any reason not to use /* */ here?
>> >
>> > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst states:
>> >
>> > 2. Style:
>> >
>> >    The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment.  The comment
>> >    style depends on the file type::
>> >
>> >       C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>> >       C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
>> >       ASM:      /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
>> >       scripts:  # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>> >       .rst:     .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>> >       .dts{i}:  // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>> >
>> > Read more in that file for reasons. If there are none, I personally
>> > think the reason is that "Linus said so". Or something like that?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>>
>> Makes sense, thanks.
>>
>> I'm thinking about dropping this file from this series and submitting
>> it separately for Greg to Ack.
>>
>> Unless he sees our exchange and acks it here. :)
>
> I can't ack a patch that is incorrect :(
>
> Please fix it up and resend...
>

Oh yes, sure, I was just waiting for more reviews before resending v2.
It's 4.18 material anyway.

Thanks,
Bartosz