On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-03-19 13:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>> Also, use a // style comment for the SPDX line in C files.
> >>
> >> I'm seeing both /* */ and // style comments used for SPDX headers - is
> >> there any reason not to use /* */ here?
> >
> > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst states:
> >
> > 2. Style:
> >
> > The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment
> > style depends on the file type::
> >
> > C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> > C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> > ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> > scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> > .rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> > .dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> >
> > Read more in that file for reasons. If there are none, I personally
> > think the reason is that "Linus said so". Or something like that?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
>
> Makes sense, thanks.
>
> I'm thinking about dropping this file from this series and submitting
> it separately for Greg to Ack.
>
> Unless he sees our exchange and acks it here. :)
I can't ack a patch that is incorrect :(
Please fix it up and resend...
thanks,
greg k-h
