From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C68A69
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:06:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA52421E70;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:06:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:06:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=FvIZtySGdXBEN7KCYQYG5r53mY
 JS8CjkwgxYUP/9SGY=; b=HsRzGzR0zCYrJAkcFK0UtJrn2vlgY/rYUCFldZvIIU
 wMKUTPjnWvZOgnf6UK1SBzcJZqb7zgwwsey+/Nqhvb5Dr7szPz9HLBwu9RCH66g7
 /fYzJXwm2o+azE07WPL7g8lP/cyWwoKm/2E6iJthXwA/IzOPwBdl/56CUUS8kcgR
 w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=FvIZty
 SGdXBEN7KCYQYG5r53mYJS8CjkwgxYUP/9SGY=; b=FU2F6adOeLB8ikcXN5Xkb7
 anCyfsTmz713OqZfj7kkuT2V+NZvd3/EIr01/aLTMc5nzYJtKawo8vLqLw8tSi52
 OvZkfYaabomVWnnqE5WJgjBrv8w+b802tfgG3za5x2/3RioZxdiq351EoHZIymmp
 IFoOi1RvC6JrJtTDSCGkScIIZ0RYdXl6VGfb5GRPZi8K2k3S0XEnNPaJe2wqdtTY
 ByXUbU6u6qfLJ4p9dYsdXgxC2ryXrWA2QDA6gnT64MRIB3BkqvR/JWqzJavmyMJS
 oaB/MGufCKNlt54AE00Ne1Xrbig6cVsGtSZla7N2YzU40z7uo4bWTb7A15ctdNpw
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:6m_WWvInxy3WWu-NpRwaaxiM4zA17wHXqlemRkQvM78ohTfkg-ks6w>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F29FBE49AD;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:06:32 +0200
Message-ID: <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag
	format
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:06:35 -0000

17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger:
> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and
> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion.

I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself.
When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive.
Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style?