From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:50328 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbdKVNsR (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:48:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:48:04 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Message-ID: <20171122134804.GA30796@kroah.com> References: <20171116183306.103584007@linutronix.de> <20171116184358.398030394@linutronix.de> <20171117150639.0e706421@vento.lan> <20171117183946.GA28533@lst.de> <20171122095117.49c558a4@vento.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171122095117.49c558a4@vento.lan> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , Kate Stewart , Philippe Ombredanne , Russell King , Rob Herring , Jonas Oberg , Joe Perches , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Charlemagne Lasse , Carmen Bianca Bakker On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: > > > > > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over > > > the nasty C99 comments to start with. And while I'm a bit behind on > > > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to > > > start with. > > Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > /* > * Copyright ... > * ... > */ > > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > header on both C and H files at development time. You break the build when you get it wrong, so you will notice it. For most "internal" .h files, using // is just fine. Yes, it's "ugly", but again, that's what Linus said he wanted it to look like, take it up with him :) > > > So it would be good to figure this out before people start spamming > > > the lists with all kinds of mass conversions and checkpatch fixes > > > for licensing.. > > > > I tried solving this with a macro in the first place and ran into issues: > > > > - Does not work in headers, especially not in UAPI ones > > Make headers_install could replace such macros by SPDX comments when > installing on userspace. The big issue is when you build, putting those macros all into something logical is a mess. I too tried it and failed. But feel to give it a go if you think it is possible :) thanks, greg k-h