From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934429AbdKPLlN (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:41:13 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:49036 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934420AbdKPLlF (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:41:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Martin Kepplinger Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers Message-ID: <20171116114110.GA5892@kroah.com> References: <20171115084541.GA23833@kroah.com> <20171115204411.10292-1-martink@posteo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171115204411.10292-1-martink@posteo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:44:11PM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > This replaces license permission statements that include a wrong postal > address of the FSF with only SPDX license identifiers; in the samples > directory. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger > --- > > I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg > had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing > permission statement seperately? I have been doing them in 2 steps, but only because the files I modified were in different "chunks" (i.e. add missing SPDX identifiers to a bunch of files in a directory, and then the second patch would remove the license identifiers for all files in that directory). As that type of patch flow doesn't make sense here, I think what you did was just fine. Nice job. Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman