[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1433851175.16887.83.camel@x220>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:59:35 +0200
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: monstr@...str.eu
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Kedareswara rao Appana <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, vinod.koul@...el.com,
michal.simek@...inx.com, soren.brinkmann@...inx.com,
appanad@...inx.com, punnaia@...inx.com, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srikanth Thokala <sthokal@...inx.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dma: Add Xilinx AXI Central Direct Memory Access
Engine driver support
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 12:41 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 10:15 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Mistakes I've seen made since I started checking this stuff (a few
> > months ago):
> > - typos in the license ident, say "GPLv2", "GPL V2", or "BSD": generates
> > a warning when module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this
> > wrong. A test in checkpatch for these typos was submitted a while ago,
> > but it never got added;
>
> Any reason for that? just lost or any problem ?
Submitter lost interest, I guess. Check
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/22/279 and note that there was no response.
> > - not adding MODULE_LICENSE() to a module: also generates a warning when
> > module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this wrong;
> > - adding MODULE_LICENSE() to built-in only code: pointless at best, and
> > annoying for reviewers ("Hey, did the submitter intend to write built-in
> > only code or modular code?");
> > - using "Dual BSD/GPL" but not a trace of the BSD license blurb in
> > sight, while adding that blurb is one of the very few requirements this
> > license actually has;
> > - license mismatch, say comment blurb states "GPL v2 (or later)" but
> > MODULE_LICENSE() ident states "GPL v2" only (or vice versa): very easy
> > mistake to make, happens once or twice a week.
>
> What do you mean by vice versa?
> GPL v2 header and MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") should be fine right?
Not really. The license in the comment at the top of the file is just
GPL v2, while the MODULE_LICENSE ident adds "or later" and thus the
right to "uplicense". So which is it: just "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 (or
later)"? Can't say in that case.
> > Did I miss anything in that list?
>
> I think you miss MODULE_ALIAS problems.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/17/301
That's outside of the license stuff, but thanks for thye pointer anyway.
> > I'm afraid that most of the above can only be caught reliably by
> > attention to detail by submitters and reviewers. That's a pity, because
> > checking for that stuff is about as boring as it gets. (What does that
> > say about me?)
>
> yep. I have never looked at the details about these license module
> stuff. But definitely great to have this list - will record it and keep
> my eye on our xilinx drivers.
>
> BTW: Some time ago we discussed SPDX License Identifier which could
> simplify license checking.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/21/21
I think I saw that fly by. Wasn't that idea shot down?
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists