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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 B46D7C3A5A6 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5272070B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:26:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1566919613; bh=xCNY96hkOK+QNqp23txuieTEN8Y8O3ft9ph6DIBSIRg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=PHPMgHhJDqM2mPg6ltPSixFf2axgJi8cH2oyh/6Zo3ibdGhrCqfKj2+RZ7/K44eFS ugb+BWfOLc6lc1pnU6/8rEdbXWz5Q+DhRGWo3DC4dJfK+Y5N1nAKPTXw4CIXp8PQLs 5+Z2HeavNax8IC+2y7SsijIijwEe8xfpAtVTd61k= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729578AbfH0P0x (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:26:53 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:42576 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725987AbfH0P0w (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:26:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C283206BF; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:26:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1566919611; bh=xCNY96hkOK+QNqp23txuieTEN8Y8O3ft9ph6DIBSIRg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rNGZ2oryufzkqlzK759sWuiM0b2GCLLDlSCXdKEPQDY5vAioj6PBPG3T20BZK1zX0 8mMx0J3sWP8MBEcBf/nnLUgccTB0OjWUQSZZNPlNyhQwGY0rqeUtId2tEvkoBfPBVD jw+CGbk3tC6JoaTYdHOxgWr0JRZAujjNJfXbCUfU= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:26:48 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Eryu Guan , Christoph Hellwig , xfs , Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , Salvatore Bonaccorso , Security Officers , Debian Security Team , benjamin.moody@gmail.com, Ben Hutchings , fstests Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test for failure to unlock inode after chgrp fails with EDQUOT Message-ID: <20190827152648.GB534@kroah.com> References: <20190827041816.GB1037528@magnolia> <20190827150451.GY1037350@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Darrick, > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:13:19AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/719 > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > > > > +#! /bin/bash > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-newer > > > > > > Please run scripts/spdxcheck.py on that file and consult the licensing > > > documentation. > > > > -or-later, sorry. > > > > So .... now that everyone who wanted these SPDX identifiers have spread > > "GPL-2.0+" around the kernel and related projects (xfsprogs, xfstests) > > just in time for SPDX 3.0 to deprecate the "+" syntax, what are we > > supposed to do? Another treewide change to fiddle with SPDX syntax? > > Can we just put: > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > > > in the LICENSES/GPL-2.0 file like the kernel does? > > The kernel is not going to change that because we have started with this > before the s/+/-or-later/ happened. Tools need to read both. > > > Is that even going to stay that way? I thought I heard that Greg was > > working on phasing out the "2.0+" tags since SPDX deprecated that? > > For new stuff we should use -or-later methinks. For new stuff, if you wish to be "kind" to some community members, we should use "-or-later" and "-only". But as you say, both are fine. And no, I am NOT working on phasing out any SPDX tags for the older stuff. Personally, I like the older ones. > Yeah, we should add a MAINTAINERS entry for LICENSES. Greg and myself are > going to be volunteered I fear. Yeah, I figured it was only a matter of time. Let me go create an entry given that we already have git tree for it in linux-next for a while now... thanks, greg k-h