SPDX identifier

SPDX identifier

[Arend Van Spriel]

Hi Kalle, Thomas,

I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a 
no-brainer I decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff 
started to happen. For all files I added:

// SPDX-License-Identifier

but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.

WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for 
'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please 
use '/*' instead
#29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC

So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.

WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for 
'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use 
'//' instead

So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */ 
and for c files we want //. For real?

This is on wireless-drivers-next so maybe it is already fixed, but I 
think this should be fixed.

Regards,
Arend

Re: SPDX identifier

[James Hughes]

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/license-rules.html
explains why the comment style differs between .c and .h

On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 12:36, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kalle, Thomas,
>
> I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a
> no-brainer I decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff
> started to happen. For all files I added:
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier
>
> but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.
>
> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please
> use '/*' instead
> #29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
>
> So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.
>
> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use
> '//' instead
>
> So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */
> and for c files we want //. For real?
>
> This is on wireless-drivers-next so maybe it is already fixed, but I
> think this should be fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Arend



-- 
James Hughes
Principal Software Engineer,
Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd

Re: SPDX identifier

[Arend Van Spriel]

On May 16, 2019 4:17:55 PM James Hughes <james.hughes@raspberrypi.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 12:36, Arend Van Spriel
> <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kalle, Thomas,
>>
>> I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a
>> no-brainer I decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff
>> started to happen. For all files I added:
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier
>>
>> but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please
>> use '/*' instead
>> #29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
>>
>> So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use
>> '//' instead
>>
>> So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */
>> and for c files we want //. For real?
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/license-rules.html
> explains why the comment style differs between .c and .h

Thanks, James

It explains why header files can not use //. Just wish the same comment 
style was chosen for the c files if only just to be consistent.

Regards,
Arend

Re: SPDX identifier

[Thomas Gleixner]

Arend,

On Thu, 16 May 2019, Arend Van Spriel wrote:

> Hi Kalle, Thomas,
> 
> I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a no-brainer I
> decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff started to happen.
> For all files I added:
> 
> // SPDX-License-Identifier
> 
> but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.
> 
> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please use
> '/*' instead
> #29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
> 
> So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.
> 
> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use '//'
> instead
> 
> So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */ and
> for c files we want //. For real?

See Documentation. This is historical because the older binutils choked on
'//' comments. Not longer an issue as we moved to more modern binutils by
now. So we can fixup the documentation and allow // style for headers as well.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: SPDX identifier

[Arend Van Spriel]

On 5/16/2019 8:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Arend,
> 
> On Thu, 16 May 2019, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> 
>> Hi Kalle, Thomas,
>>
>> I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a no-brainer I
>> decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff started to happen.
>> For all files I added:
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier
>>
>> but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please use
>> '/*' instead
>> #29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
>>
>> So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use '//'
>> instead
>>
>> So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */ and
>> for c files we want //. For real?
> 
> See Documentation. This is historical because the older binutils choked on
> '//' comments. Not longer an issue as we moved to more modern binutils by
> now. So we can fixup the documentation and allow // style for headers as well.

Right. I was pointed at the documentation already. I will ignore the 
warning for my series and stick with // style for both.

Thanks,
Arend