linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] padata: Remove FSF address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOFm3uEf+ZcoQqvAeiKWY5S36RtFeVS+HBpYh2o2TXk2mqvgow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:34:37 +0100
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To:     Cheah Kok Cheong <thrust73@...il.com>
Cc:     steffen.klassert@...unet.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] padata: Remove FSF address

Dear CheahKC,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cheah Kok Cheong <thrust73@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 09:20:48PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Cheah Kok Cheong <thrust73@...il.com> wrote:
>> > Remove FSF address otherwise checkpatch will flag my next patch.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Cheah Kok Cheong <thrust73@...il.com>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/padata.c | 4 ----
>> >  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c
>> > index 57c0074..9d91909 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/padata.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/padata.c
>> > @@ -14,10 +14,6 @@
>> >   * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
>> >   * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for
>> >   * more details.
>> > - *
>> > - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
>> > - * this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
>> > - * 51 Franklin St - Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
>> >   */
>> >
>> >  #include <linux/export.h>
>> > --
>> > 2.7.4
>> >
>>
>>
>> Why not use instead the simpler SPDX ids?
>> --
>> Cordially
>> Philippe Ombredanne
>
> Hi Philippe,
>   Adding the SPDX id can be the subject of a separate patch.
> Believe you are part of the team doing an audit in this matter.
> I shall leave adding the SPDX id to you guys the professionals.
> Looks like you guys are using script to do this en masse.
>
> But if you insist and our maintainer is agreeable, I can send
> another patch to add the SPDX id.

If you could work it out directly that would be best. There are a lot
of files in the kernel and each one needs a careful review even with
best license detection script (which . So tagging files on the go when
they are updated is the best way to help!

Thank you.

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne