Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file

Evan Green
2023-10-13T15:27:17Z

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:39 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 08:45:39AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 06:02:38PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:42:39AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:11 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 02:45:14PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 03:56:13PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
> > > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * The hwprobe interface, for allowing userspace to probe to see which features
> > > > > > > + * are supported by the hardware. See Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst for more
> > > > > > > + * details.
> > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2012 Regents of the University of California
> > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2014 Darius Rad <darius@bluespec.com>
> > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2017 SiFive
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So uh, this is all new(ish) code, originally written last September,
> > > > > > that is being moved, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I just pulled the Copyrights over by standard practice of code
> > > > > movement, but I agree they don't make much sense for the code I moved.
> > > > > I suck at copyright management and would be happy for suggestions here.
> > > > > If Rivos would like to put one here for the work Evan did, then I'll be
> > > > > happy to add it. Or, if people prefer, I could add a Ventana copyright.
> > > >
> > > > I probably would have stuck a Rivos banner on it if I had written it
> > > > as a new file myself, as I think they "own" the work I do. But it all feels
> > > > a bit like vanity license plates given it's GPL, so I imagine whatever
> > > > you do will get no real complaints.
> > >
> > > Aye, that's how I see it too. I've not bothered adding that stuff where
> > > I could help it. The git history shows who made copyrightable changes to
> > > the file anyway, but obv. I am no lawyer.
> > > Just in this case, since as far as I could tell this code was written
> > > from LPC onwards, it made little sense to copy over some 2012 era
> > > copyright information.
> > >
> >
> > So what's the final plan? I feel a bit strange adding a Rivos copyright
> > while copying the Rivos code over since I don't consider myself
> > "authorized" to do so.
>
> They didn't add one when they made the changes, so I wouldn't.
>
> > I also don't want to add a Ventana one for just
> > code movement. Do we need a copyright on this file at all? Should I move
> > it without anything and then add a Ventana copyright when adding the
> > which-cpus stuff?
>
> I would move it without anything.
> Apologies for derailing things with copyright notice crap :/

Works for me, too.
-Evan