linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] kbuild, PCI: microchip: comment out MODULE

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, 13 Feb 2023 21:23:55 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] kbuild, PCI: microchip: comment out MODULE_LICENSE
 in non-modules

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:30:44AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > It looks odd to me too. Please add SPDX tag in modules which don't have
> > it already, instead of commenting code.
> 
> So I'm just a bystander here and should probably be ignored, but ...
> 
> From what I can see, Nick is attempting one of those cross-tree cleanups
> that's painful enough to do on its own.  This request is asking him to
> perform a different, unrelated, and potentially fraught cleanup that the
> maintainers of the code in question have not yet managed to get around
> to taking care of.  This will impede an already prolonged process and,
> IMO, unnecessarily so.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to let this work proceed while making a note
> of the files still needing SPDX tags?

Please see a note from Nick, who said that these tags were already
in-place for most of the files. If it is hard for him, he can skip
adding new tags. However, the proposed solution is to comment code
and leave dead code is not a right solution.

Thanks

> 
> I'll shut up now :)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon