linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 09/44] intel_th: 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]

Message-ID: <20190820200304.GS30205@sasha-vm>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:03:04 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 09/44] intel_th: Use the correct style for
 SPDX License Identifier

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:27:22AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:39:53AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit fac7b714c514fcc555541e1d6450c694b0a5f8d3 ]
>>
>> This patch corrects the SPDX License Identifier style
>> in header files related to Drivers for Intel(R) Trace Hub
>> controller.
>> For C header files Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>> mandates C-like comments (opposed to C source files where
>> C++ style should be used)
>>
>> Changes made by using a script provided by Joe Perches here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/7/46
>>
>> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/hwtracing/intel_th/msu.h | 2 +-
>>  drivers/hwtracing/intel_th/pti.h | 2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>Not really a stable patch at all, unless you want to start backporting
>all SPDX changes (hint, NO we do not!)  :)
>
>please drop this from everywhere.
>
>And what triggered this?  It's just comment changes, shouldn't the
>autobot know to ignore those?

It got a score just above my cutoff, and I missed it during review :(

FWIW, there's no explicit rule to ignore documentation, AUTOSEL sort of
learned to do it on it's own, but here it seems that the content of the
commit message outweighed the code change metrics.

--
Thanks,
Sasha