On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> escreveu: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info > > > > storage > > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: > > > > > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over > > > the nasty C99 comments to start with. And while I'm a bit behind on > > > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to > > > start with. > > Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > /* > * Copyright ... > * ... > */ > > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > header on both C and H files at development time.
You break the build when you get it wrong, so you will notice it. For most "internal" .h files, using // is just fine. Yes, it's "ugly", but again, that's what Linus said he wanted it to look like, take it up with him :) > > > So it would be good to figure this out before people start spamming > > > the lists with all kinds of mass conversions and checkpatch fixes > > > for licensing.. > > > > I tried solving this with a macro in the first place and ran into issues: > > > > - Does not work in headers, especially not in UAPI ones > > Make headers_install could replace such macros by SPDX comments when > installing on userspace. The big issue is when you build, putting those macros all into something logical is a mess. I too tried it and failed. But feel to give it a go if you think it is possible :) thanks, greg k-h
