From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DE01B017 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:07:00 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2017 02:06:59 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,431,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="19797776" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.106]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2017 02:06:57 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:06:56 +0000 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:06:55 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Hemant Agrawal Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20171220100655.GA19304@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20171219143321.219543-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] Use SPDX tags on C files X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:07:01 -0000 On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:21:21PM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > On 12/19/2017 8:03 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > This contains the output of a script run to replace the BSD License with > > SPDX tags on Intel copyright files. The script should only have modified > > files with a single, Intel copyright on them, and ignored all files that > > had multiple copyright lines. Due to variance in the headers used, not all > > files were updated automatically, 11 files were manually done in this set > > too. Any others missed can be updated in later sets once found. > > > > SPDX tag is in 2nd line, first line of files is still "/*-" or it's > variances. > > Linux uses the SPDX in the very first line as it will help in checkpatch and > other tools. > > The proposed licenses/README states: > "DPDK uses first line of the file to be SPDX tag. In case of *#!* scripts, > SPDX tag can be placed in 2nd line of the file. > So what is the expected format for these headers - using "//" or "/* */" for the first-line tag? What about for the copyright lines? If we want the SPDX identifier as the first line we have a number of options, and we should settle on one. Here are the options I see: [1] /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation */ Which can work, if you don't mind the unbalanced /* vs */ inline vs separate line. Alternatively, we can use // for some or all of the tag and copyright: [2] // SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause // Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation or [3] // SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause /* Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation */ [For the latter, I think the close */ should be on a newline to look ok in the case of multiple copyrights, and an "All rights reserved" line if present] Finally, I suppose there is the (ugly IMHO) option of: [4] // SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause /* * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation */ Any other options? My preference, given that we only use /* */ style comments in DPDK is option 1. If we don't use that, I think option 3 is next best, then 2. I notice from the dpaa2 code update patch [pw 32407], you have taken a similar approach to option 1 (just with an extra blank line, which is fine) Any other opinions or comments? Anyone disagree with using option #1 above, and as done by Hemant in his set? > Also, do you plan to modify the "dual BSD/GPLv2" in separate patch set? e.g > icp_qat_fw.h? > > Eventually. However, my primary concern now is to get all the common cases changed over automatically so we can get maximum effect for minimum work. I'm also hoping that other vendors can do the same for their files. Once that's done I'll continue working with others on the mopping-up job of converting over all the edge-case files. If others want to do that in the meantime, I'm ok to review and ack the patches. /Bruce