From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 11/13] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:33:01 +0300 Message-ID: <20180910183301.GA20225@linux.intel.com> References: <20180827185507.17087-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180827185507.17087-12-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180905173355.GE11368@linux.intel.com> <20180906092100.GA27302@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , Platform Driver , Dave Hansen , sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, serge.ayoun@intel.com, shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, "Siddha, Suresh B" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , Herbert Xu , Eric Biggers , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen > wrote: > > There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX > > headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I > > guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add > > SPDX headers in the first place that was the example I was given. Still > > checkpatch.pl complains about C99-style comments. > > > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl? How those commits were ever > > accepted? > > See Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. Headers should go with > C-style comments: > > The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment > style depends on the file type:: > > C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: > C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */ > > And: > > If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the > appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This > is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header > files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where > 'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but > there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style > comments. > > The ones that got in are probably either old or they slipped through > (and they do not break the build). Thank you, this clears things up. Highly appreciated! > Cheers, > Miguel /Jarkko