Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:38:22 +0100 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/21] eeprom: at24: use SPDX identifier instead of GPL boiler-plate |
| |
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-03-19 13:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: > > On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: > >>> 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
| |