From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34757) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPBmK-00066a-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:33:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPBjK-0005ym-TW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:30:42 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:33724) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPBjI-0005wI-Vb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:30:38 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id u9-v6so3227963wrr.0 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:30:36 -0800 (PST) References: <20181115192446.17187-1-minyard@acm.org> <20181115192446.17187-2-minyard@acm.org> <8add8514-f353-b914-78e8-e9f3e9be840d@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Message-ID: <1f31e8e0-cde2-db7a-56ae-26eb70bb13d9@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:30:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/12] i2c: Split smbus into parts List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Corey Minyard Cc: QEMU Developers , Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Corey Minyard On 20/11/18 16:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 16 November 2018 at 13:20, Corey Minyard wrote: >> On 11/15/18 4:22 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/include/hw/i2c/smbus_eeprom.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ >>> >>> >>> You missed the copyright notice here. >> >> >> Other files don't have copyright notices (i2c.h, for instance), and for >> the smbus.[ch] case the copyrights are kind of mixed up, the include >> files had the big header with a copyright by one company and the C >> file had a different copyright notice by a different company. >> >> Not a huge deal, but I didn't include it in that file because I didn't >> think it was necessary. I'm wondering if it would be best to >> establish a style like Linux has, with the // SPDX... thing on the >> first line. > > Yeah, we have some legacy files with no copyright notice, but we > usually try to avoid that for new files. New files should have > a copyright notice and a license statement. (If you copied from > a file without a license statement, LICENSE says that means > 2-or-later.) > > We don't yet use SPDX headers. (They're just a different and > shorter way to write the license statement.) Does that mean we can use them, or you rather prefer we don't? While they are machine parseable, I find them easier to understand than the big chunk of legal text that sometime are not correctly written. Thanks, Phil.