On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 08:19:27AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 10:01:58PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 08:09:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:01:39AM -0700, Nuno Das Neves wrote: > > > > These must be in uapi because they will be used in the mshv ioctl API. > > > > > > > > Version numbers for each file: > > > > hvhdk.h 25212 > > > > hvhdk_mini.h 25294 > > > > hvgdk.h 25125 > > > > hvgdk_mini.h 25294 > > > > > > what are version numbers? > > > > These are internal version numbers for the hypervisor headers. We keep > > track of them so that we can detect if there are any breakages in the > > ABI, and thus either ask them to be fixed or we come up with ways to > > maintain compatibility. People outside of Microsoft don't need to worry > > about this. If you don't think this information belongs in the commit > > message, we can drop it. > > Internal numbers to a single company that have no relevance to anyone > else do not belong in a changelog comment. Would you want to see this > in any other kernel changelog message for any other portion of the > kernel? > Okay. They shall be removed. I agree with you. > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h b/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..9bcbb7d902b2 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */ > > > > > > That's usually not a good license for a new uapi .h file, why did you > > > choose this one? > > > > > > > This is chosen so that other Microsoft developers who don't normally > > work on Linux can review this code. > > Sorry, but that's not how kernel development is done. Please fix your > internal review processes and use the correct uapi header file license. > > If your lawyers insist on this license, that's fine, but please have > them provide a signed-off-by on the patch that adds it and have it > documented why it is this license in the changelog AND in a comment in > the file so we can understand what is going on with it. > We went through an internal review with our legal counsel regarding the MIT license. We have an approval from them. Let me ask if using something like "GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note OR MIT" is possible. Thanks, Wei.
