lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:17:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Markus Heiser wrote:
> > > Am 07.09.19 um 20:04 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > > > No idea. I would actually prefer to just remove the restriction, and let
> > > > the SPDX header to be anywhere inside the first comment block inside a
> > > > file [2].
> > > > [2] I *suspect* that the restriction was added in order to make
> > > > ./scripts/spdxcheck.py to run faster and to avoid false positives.
> > > > Right now, if the maximum limit is removed (or set to a very high
> > > > value), there will be one false positive:
> >
> > Nope. The intention was to have a well define place and format instead of
> > everyone and his dog deciding to put it somewhere. SPDX is not intended to
> > replace the existing licensing mess with some other randomly placed and
> > formatted licensing mess.
>
> I find the current style quite unaesthetic:
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> /*
> * linux/mm/memory.c
> *
> * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Linus Torvalds
> */
>
> I'd much rather see
>
> /*
> * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Linus Torvalds
> */
>
> but I appreciate the desire to force it to be on the first line if at all
> possible.

That style is inflicted upon you by Penguin Emperor Decree. :)




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-08 16:47    [W:0.044 / U:4.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site