[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c828644-8797-2ec7-fbd7-a6ef21fa1356@axentia.se>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:51:42 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] eeprom: at24: use SPDX identifier instead of GPL
boiler-plate
On 2018-03-19 13:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-03-19 12:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists