linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARCH: Use the correct style for SPDX License Identifier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:00:18 +0530
From:   Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARCH: Use the correct style for SPDX License Identifier

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:41:26AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 06:58:14PM +0530, Nishad Kamdar wrote:
> > This patch corrects the SPDX License Identifier style
> > in the Hardware Architecture subsystem.
> > 
> > Changes made by using a script provided by Joe Perches here:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/7/46
> > and making some manual changes.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt2712-pinfunc.h     | 2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/pointer_auth.h             | 2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/sdei.h                     | 2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/vmap_stack.h               | 2 +-
> >  arch/nds32/include/asm/assembler.h                | 2 +-
> 
> No reason to put all arches in one patch. Please split by arch for 
> maintainers to take.
> 
> Rob
> 
Ok, I'll do that.

Thanks for the review.

Thanks and regards,
Nishad