On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX > > headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I > > guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add > > SPDX headers in the first place that was the example I was given. Still > > checkpatch.pl complains about C99-style comments. > > > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl? How those commits were ever > > accepted? > > See Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. Headers should go with > C-style comments: > > 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> */ > > And: > > If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the > appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This > is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header > files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where > 'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but > there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style > comments. > > The ones that got in are probably either old or they slipped through > (and they do not break the build). Thank you, this clears things up. Highly appreciated! > Cheers, > Miguel /Jarkko
