From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96241C4338F for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718BC60F93 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232165AbhG1Lmj (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:39 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:45354 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231631AbhG1Lmi (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16SBdoqV091728; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : from : to : cc : references : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=4czXPcxgSfvf7Mvdaa7aDcQiGZYEqXwv/2frKQzrDI8=; b=Wj5qbhF74RRChimGLRfsBgLmDWR258KYqw7XBBj6g7ymBId0bWPHcuH7ak/ioO3DZA4n rXSfX3Azn/ZYtanO3ihcUMbFMCJVzkoFlKrcVUo0tYaclU2SyuI71ar+QDMEvqsrG1Y8 HuyMsZgWEPxV+lv0BD5QyUI3Zfncf0dDNNUJacPe3cP9JCBgo5L24a4TNcnxz50J0IvT bHXTpDrVjZ3J6OIvvpm6X49EVMmf2q7WMHHC9G8tUN4o+05tJN7Oh6bh8D8pJNZ3HRlM vW9XUPQzL5o63W69dAd7Exx8l3c9l4+ii8jzcGQlBkxxgbpINgXMUbC6OFfIKgQXh/5Y WQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3a35dcjexn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:36 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16SBedXg097930; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:23 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3a35dcjdxt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:42:23 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16SBcjpl004953; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:38 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3a235m10un-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:38 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 16SBfZvG29491562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:35 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4B442049; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FF742041; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.145.21.74]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:41:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Add SPDX and header comments for s390x/* and lib/s390x/* From: Janosch Frank To: Thomas Huth , Claudio Imbrenda Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com References: <20210728101328.51646-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210728101328.51646-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210728123221.7ca90b35@p-imbrenda> <2e391a1a-54d4-8713-4a93-104a6b4cfaf1@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:34 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2e391a1a-54d4-8713-4a93-104a6b4cfaf1@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: -rEg_a7XRZYaCbQ38OJ7gSljksTGVCfa X-Proofpoint-GUID: ATkwrg-lApYQG0dcuBNN7LepNznN_iHk X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-28_07:2021-07-27,2021-07-28 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2107280064 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 7/28/21 1:36 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 7/28/21 12:36 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 28/07/2021 12.32, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:13:26 +0000 >>> Janosch Frank wrote: >>> >>>> Seems like I missed adding them. >>>> >>>> The s390x/sieve.c one is a bit of a head scratcher since it came with >>>> the first commit but I assume it's lpgl2-only since that's what the >>>> COPYRIGHT file said then. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >>>> --- >>>> lib/s390x/uv.c | 9 +++++++++ >>>> s390x/mvpg-sie.c | 9 +++++++++ >>>> s390x/sie.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> x86/sieve.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+) >> [...] >>>> diff --git a/x86/sieve.c b/x86/sieve.c >>>> index 8150f2d9..b89d5f80 100644 >>>> --- a/x86/sieve.c >>>> +++ b/x86/sieve.c >>>> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ >>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-only */ >>> >>> do you really need to fix something in the x86 directory? (even though >>> it is also used on other archs) >> >> I just realized that s390x/sieve.c is just a symlink, not a copy of the file :-) > > You're not the only one... > >> >>> maybe you can split out this as a separate patch, so s390x stuff is >>> more self contained, and others can then discuss the sieve.c patch >>> separately if needed? >> >> That might make sense, indeed. > > Yup will do On second thought I'm just gonna drop that hunk since x86 doesn't really have SPDX or header comments for most of their files anyway. > >> >> Thomas >> >