On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:33 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:27:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate
> > > > > > paragraph
> > > > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > []
> > > any objections to merging the patch in its current form?
> >
> > Your own suggestion that this be applied only to
> > patches hasn't been implemented.
>
> Given Greg's comment that we want to eliminate the existing instances, I
> wanted to make sure implementing that change still makes sense.
>
> I can easily enough make checkpatch emit an ERROR for patches and a WARN
> or CHK for existing files, if that's the consensus.
Hi Josh
Most of the time, action is at least as useful as consensus.
If you do the runtime --file check, please use this form:
my $msg_type = \&WARN;
$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
&{$msg_type}("FSF_MESSAGE",
etc...)
(that form matches the trigraph test)
Use whatever ERROR/WARN/CHK you think appropriate.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
