On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:21:40 +0000,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:32:51PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:07:53 +0000,
> > Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without
> > > Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations
> > > are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro
> > > in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing
> > > object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe
> > > might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message.
> > >
> > > So remove it in the files in this commit, none of which can be built as
> > > modules.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-modules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c | 1 -
> > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > > index 25fd8ee66565..4bbfa2b0a4df 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > > @@ -390,4 +390,3 @@ IRQCHIP_MATCH("renesas,rzg2l-irqc", rzg2l_irqc_init)
> > > IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER_END(rzg2l_irqc)
> > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>");
> > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Renesas RZ/G2L IRQC Driver");
> > > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >
> > I'm probably missing some context here, but I find it odd to drop
> > something that is a important piece of information because of what
> > looks like a tooling regression.
> >
> > It also means that once a random driver gets enabled as a module, it
> > won't load because it is now missing a MODULE_LICENSE() annotation.
> >
> > It feels like MODULE_LICENSE should instead degrade to an empty
> > statement when MODULE isn't defined. Why isn't this approach the
> > correct one?
> >
> > I expect the cover letter would have some pretty good information on
> > this, but lore.kernel.org doesn't seem to have it at the time I write
> > this ("Message-ID <20230224150811.80316-1-nick.alcock@xxxxxxxxxx> not
> > found").
>
> The right thing is to not even have this and have the module license
> inferred from the SPDX tag. But for now we want to remove the tag from
> things we know for sure are not modules.
I understand that you want to remove it. I don't get why this is the
right solution. Can you please assume that, in this particular
instance, I am a complete idiot and spell it out for me?
Why isn't that a problem for modules that are compiled-in?
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
