On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:45:05PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 02.05.19 um 12:38 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:25:36PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 02.05.19 um 09:07 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > >>> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:20:44PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>>> + linux-actions > >>>> > >>>> Am 01.05.19 um 09:07 schrieb Nishad Kamdar: > >>>>> This patch corrects the SPDX License Identifier style > >>>>> in header files related to Clock Drivers for Actions Semi Socs. > >>>>> For C header files Documentation/process/license-rules.rst > >>>>> mandates C-like comments (opposed to C source files where > >>>>> C++ style should be used) > >>>> [...] > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-common.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-composite.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-divider.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-factor.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-fixed-factor.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-gate.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-mux.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-pll.h | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/clk/actions/owl-reset.h | 2 +- > >>>>> 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> Where's the practical benefit of this patch? These are all private > >>>> headers used from C files, so they can handle C++ comments just fine, > >>>> otherwise we would've seen build failures. > >>> > >>> Please read Documentation/process/license-rules.rst, the section > >>> entitled "Style", for what the documented formats are for SPDX lines, > >>> depending on the file type. > >> > >> That does in no way answer my question! You conveniently dropped my > >> paragraph indicating that I understand why we would do that for public > >> headers in include/, but none of these private headers here are included > >> in .lds files. So there really seems to be no benefit of switching from > >> one style to another for in-tree code. > > > > It should answer the question, it was "decreed" that all header files > > use /* */, and all C files use // for their SPDX lines, so we documented > > it that way. > > > > Yes, maybe it doesn't make "sense" in that this really is only needed > > for headers that get included into asm files, which is why we had to do > > it this way, but it's better to be consistant than to have random > > breakages at times. > > > > It's not an issue of public headers at all, sorry. > > > > Consistency is good, as we can have automatic tools check these types of > > things, which is the only way to reliably handle the format of something > > that needs to be in every file in a project with 63,100+ different > > files. > > Okay, if it's about consistency then there will be more cases to fix. Agreed, hopefully checkpatch is up to date enough to catch these. > What about this one: > > My interpretation of the documentation has been that I should end the > comment after the identifiers: > > /* SPDX-... */ > /* ... > */ Correct. > Some people deviate by doing > > /* SPDX-... > * foo > */ Not correct. > So the documentation may need to be extended to clarify that for full > consistency, as well as clarify the previous scenario: > "If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the > appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used." > To me that reads very different from what you just said above. Documentation can always be updated, a patch to make it clearer is always appreciated. But look at what we have today in the document, I think it should be pretty obvious that: /* SPDX... */ is the thing to use for C header files. If you disagree, that's fine, please send a patch to make it clearer and we can all review it. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-actions mailing list linux-actions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-actions
