From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:38:22 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Peter Rosin , Arnd Bergmann , linux-i2c , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] eeprom: at24: use SPDX identifier instead of GPL boiler-plate Message-ID: <20180319153822.GB23694@kroah.com> References: <20180319091721.18193-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180319091721.18193-5-brgl@bgdev.pl> <2c828644-8797-2ec7-fbd7-a6ef21fa1356@axentia.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-03-19 13:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin : > > On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin : > >>> 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: > > C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */ > > ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */ > > scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: > > .rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: > > .dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: > > > > 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