Re: [GIT PULL] SPDX update for 5.2-rc1 - round 1

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 21 May 2019, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 13:32 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > (Perhaps, checkpatch.pl can suggest newer tags in case
> > patch submitters do not even know that deprecation.)
> 
> I'd still prefer the kernel use of a single SPDX style.
> 
> I don't know why the -only and -or-later forms were
> used for this patch, but I like it.

Mostly because the underlying tools use the latest SDPX version.

> Is it agreed that the GPL-<v>-only and GPL-<v>-or-later
> forms should be preferred for new SPDX identifiers?

I have no strong opinion, but using the -only / -or-later variant makes a
lot of sense.

> If so, I'll submit a checkpatch patch.

No objections, but we please have to make it clear that this is not a new
playground for s/OLDSTYLE/NEWSTYLE/ scriptkiddies.

The compliance tools have to understand both anyway.

> I could also wire up a patch to checkpatch and docs to
> remove the /* */
> requirement for .h files and prefer
> the generic // form for both .c and
> .h files as the
> current minimum tooling versions now all allow //
> comments

Yes, that makes sense. The restriction is not longer relevant, but again we
are not changing all the existing files for no reason.

Thanks,

	tglx