On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:56 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/01/2017 12:41 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >> >> David, >> >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/01/2017 11:49 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> David, Greg, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:42 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/30/2017 11:53 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/resource-mgr.c >>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ >>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>>> + * Resource manager for Octeon. >>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>> + * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU >>>>>>>> General >>>>>>>> Public >>>>>>>> + * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this >>>>>>>> archive >>>>>>>> + * for more details. >>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2017 Cavium, Inc. >>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you nicely included an SPDX id, you would not need the >>>>>> boilerplate anymore. e.g. these can go alright? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They may not be strictly speaking necessary, but I don't think they >>>>> hurt >>>>> anything. Unless there is a requirement to strip out the license text, >>>>> we >>>>> would stick with it as is. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the requirement is there and that would be much better for >>>> everyone: keeping both is redundant and does not bring any value, does >>>> it? Instead it kinda removes the benefits of having the SPDX id in the >>>> first place IMHO. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, as there have been already ~12K+ files cleaned up and >>>> still over 60K files to go, it would really nice if new files could >>>> adopt the new style: this way we will not have to revisit and repatch >>>> them in the future. >>>> >>> >>> I am happy to follow any style Greg would suggest. There doesn't seem to >>> be >>> much documentation about how this should be done yet. >> >> >> Thomas (tglx) has already submitted a first series of doc patches a >> few weeks ago. And AFAIK he might be working on posting the updates >> soon, whenever his real time clock yields a few cycles away from real >> time coding work ;) >> >> See also these discussions with Linus [1][2][3], Thomas[4] and Greg[5] >> on this and mostly related topics >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715 >> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125 >> [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133 >> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805 >> [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/19/165 >> > > OK, you convinced me. > > Thanks, > David > No! Thank you to you: For doing real work on the kernel that makes my servers and laptops run, while I am nitpicking you on comments. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
