On Nov 7, 2017, at 23:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:35:43AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2017, at 06:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. In that case, you can add my: Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@xxxxxxxxx> Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Principal Architect Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
