linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] nds32: 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:50:36 +0530
From:   Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] nds32: Use the correct style for SPDX License
 Identifier

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:35:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019, Nishad Kamdar wrote:
> 
> > This patch corrects the SPDX License Identifier style
> > in the nds32 Hardware Architecture related files.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
> 
> Actually instead of doing that we should fix the documentation. The
> requirement came from older binutils because they barfed on // style
> comments in ASM files. That's history as we upped the minimal binutil
> requirement.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

Ok.

So according to license-rules.rst,
which says

"This has been fixed by now, but there are still older assembler
tools which cannot handle C++ style comments."

Now there are no assembler tools which cannot handle C++ comments ?
and the document should be changed accordingly ?

Thanks for the review.

Regards,
Nishad