[PATCH 06/11] staging: lustre: add SPDX identifiers to all lustre files
gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Sat Nov 11 13:13:42 UTC 2017
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:00:02PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 23:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> In that case, you can add my:
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger at intel.com>
Great, thanks for the review.
More information about the devel