Re: [PATCH v19 01/21] s390x/cpu topology: add s390 specifics to CPU topology

[Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 16:04 +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 4/4/23 14:35, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * CPU Topology
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022
> > > > 
> > > > Shouldn't we have some range : 2022-2023 ?
> > > 
> > > There was a discussion on this in the first spins, I think to 
> > > remember that Nina wanted 22 and Thomas 23,
> > > 
> > > now we have a third opinion :) .
> > > 
> > > I must say that all three have their reasons and I take what the 
> > > majority wants.
> > 
> > There is an internal IBM document describing the copyright tags. If I 
> > recall
> > well, first date is the first year the code was officially published, 
> > second
> > year is the last year it was modified (so last commit of the year). Or
> > something like that and it's theory, because we tend to forget.
> > 
> > For an example, see the OPAL FW https://github.com/open-power/skiboot/,
> > and run :
> > 
> >   "grep Copyright.*IBM" in the OPAL FW
> 
> 
> OK for me, it looks logical, and all three of you are right then.
> 
> So I will use
> 
> Copyright IBM Corp. 2022-2023

You should use a comma instead of a hyphen as per IBM policy.
I.e. 2022, 2023

> 
> in the next spin if nobody is against.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> >  [ ...]
> > 
> > > > > @@ -30,8 +30,19 @@ static char 
> > > > > *cpu_hierarchy_to_string(MachineState *ms)
> > > > >   {
> > > > >       MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
> > > > >       GString *s = g_string_new(NULL);
> > > > > +    const char *multiply = " * ", *prefix = "";
> > > > >   -    g_string_append_printf(s, "sockets (%u)", ms->smp.sockets);
> > > > > +    if (mc->smp_props.drawers_supported) {
> > > > > +        g_string_append_printf(s, "drawers (%u)", ms->smp.drawers);
> > > > > +    prefix = multiply;
> > > > 
> > > > indent issue.
> > > 
> > > right, seems I forgot to update the patch set after the checkpatch.
> > 
> > nope, you didn't. checkpatch doesn't report it. It's not perfect :/
> > 
> > C.