On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:35:43AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > On Nov 7, 2017, at 06:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
