Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 10/19/2022 4:13 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
On 10/10/2022 11:17 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
The following base code is based on Google Virtual Ethernet (gve)
driver v1.3.0 under MIT license.
- gve_adminq.c
- gve_adminq.h
- gve_desc.h
- gve_desc_dqo.h
- gve_register.h
- gve.h
The original code is in:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
ub.com%2FGoogleCloudPlatform%2Fcompute-virtual-ethernet-
linux%2F%2F&am

p;data=05%7C01%7Chemant.agrawal%40nxp.com%7C45cbc9718dcc40d04e4
508dab1

d82440%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6380178391
21579415
%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi
LCJBTiI6I

k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LHunq53xMl8i
W6%2B3scjZ
q0Bx7oF08yLWk424aw5lnwA%3D&reserved=0
tree/v1.3.0/google/gve

Note that these code are not Intel files and they come from the kernel
community. The base code there has the statement of
SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT). Here we just follow the
required MIT license as an exception to DPDK.

Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng....@intel.com>

<...>

diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h
new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..1b0d59b639
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+ * Google Virtual Ethernet (gve) driver
+ * Version: 1.3.0

There is a version macro in the code, is version information required in the
file comment?

+ * Copyright (C) 2015-2022 Google, Inc.
+ * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation

I don't know if it is OK to add Intel copyright, as far as I know this requires 
big
enough contribution to the code, if this is copy of existing code, may be only
original copyright should exist.

[Hemant] Yes, the general guideline is that one should add their copyright if 
they have big enough contribution.  But at the end it is a guideline - not the 
rule.
It is up-to the original copyright holder to object.

Does this mean as long as original copyright holder did not object, it 
is OK to add more copyright?
I don't think they are represented or aware of it this change at all, I 
believe we (as community) also have responsibility to make these things 
correct, in our capacity.


cc'ed @Hemant and @Stephen for more comment.