[PATCH 06/11] staging: lustre: add SPDX identifiers to all lustre files

Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Wed Nov 8 06:15:27 UTC 2017


On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:35:43AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 06:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to
> > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses.
> > 
> > Update the drivers/staging/lustre files files with the correct SPDX
> > license identifier based on the license text in the file itself.  The
> > SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used
> > instead of the full boiler plate text.
> > 
> > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe
> > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/curproc.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/curproc.h
> > index 1ea27c9e3708..3cb3f086148e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/curproc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/curproc.h
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > /*
> >  * GPL HEADER START
> >  *
> 
> I'm not against this, per-se, but I thought that C++ style "//" comments
> were frowned-upon in the kernel code?  Should this rather be:
> 
>     /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> 
> as I'd prefer not to have a dozen follow-on patches because checkpatch.pl
> complains about C++ comments.

Nope, for the SPDX identifier, Linus wanted them to be // so they will
"stand out".  Look at the identifiers in his tree already as an example
of this.

thanks,

greg k-h


More information about the devel mailing list