On 12/31/2025 4:05 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025, "Nautiyal, Ankit K" <[email protected]> wrote:
PS: Fixed the SPDX license identifier styling for the header files (and
the checkpatch warnings due to these), before pushing.
Did you checkpatch the changes? Usually the style is to have the SPDX
identifier in a comment of its own, not combined with whatever follows:
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
Hi Jani,
I did run checkpatch before pushing the changes.
With the original version of the patch, checkpatch was throwing the
warning, but after this change it didn't.
You are absolutely right though. I misinterpreted the license rules [1]
and assumed that Copyright line was part of the <SPDX License
Expression>, which I can see is clearly wrong, based on the next point
in the following section `Syntax`.
I will send patches to fix these, and will make sure to follow the
correct style going forward.
In the new year I intend not to repeat older mistakes (but may be to
make new ones :)).
Wish you a Happy New Year!
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.9/process/license-rules.html
BR,
Jani.
