On Wed 2017-11-22 14:48:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: > > > > > > > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over > > > > the nasty C99 comments to start with. And while I'm a bit behind on > > > > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to > > > > start with. > > > > Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file: > > > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > /* > > * Copyright ... > > * ... > > */ > > > > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > > header on both C and H files at development time. > > You break the build when you get it wrong, so you will notice it. For > most "internal" .h files, using // is just fine. > > Yes, it's "ugly", but again, that's what Linus said he wanted it to look > like, take it up with him :) Linus said: # So in general, the _hope_ is that we can just end up replacing # existing boilerplate comments with that single line SPDX comment # (using "//" in *.[ch] files, but obviously some other kinds of files # end up having a different comment character, typically '#'). That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind Linus. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
