On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:00:02PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > 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> Great, thanks for the review. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
