Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartosz Golaszewski <> | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:43:16 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/21] eeprom: at24: use SPDX identifier instead of GPL boiler-plate |
| |
2018-03-19 16:38 GMT+01:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> 2018-03-19 13:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: >> > On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: >> >>> Also, use a // style comment for the SPDX line in C files. >> >> >> >> I'm seeing both /* */ and // style comments used for SPDX headers - is >> >> there any reason not to use /* */ here? >> > >> > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst states: >> > >> > 2. Style: >> > >> > The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment >> > style depends on the file type:: >> > >> > C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> >> > C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ >> > ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ >> > scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> >> > .rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> >> > .dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> >> > >> > Read more in that file for reasons. If there are none, I personally >> > think the reason is that "Linus said so". Or something like that? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Peter >> >> Makes sense, thanks. >> >> I'm thinking about dropping this file from this series and submitting >> it separately for Greg to Ack. >> >> Unless he sees our exchange and acks it here. :) > > I can't ack a patch that is incorrect :( > > Please fix it up and resend... >
Oh yes, sure, I was just waiting for more reviews before resending v2. It's 4.18 material anyway.
Thanks, Bartosz
| |