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 C0248AAA9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:19:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598CA21BDD;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:19:09 -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=oaoWgfcBAjiXl2ih8vc2JJfUu6
 YIe7Ujp0wGIJ5qGmU=; b=jBBl3K2g/VvVeZx/nmMzAm8MNGnTimjfyK8SW3q/20
 1u/EWSjocgpEniJlgfQSjWcDOlBZz7NtQCbVKXOd13HddmDiEpLujjcs9ZzI8Z1d
 LBb17EyvqtQeXP/giuK+E8DGe3scN2QYRxdjFKSsy5GckDr496ewLQnibwbg5gmf
 s=
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=oaoWgf
 cBAjiXl2ih8vc2JJfUu6YIe7Ujp0wGIJ5qGmU=; b=TeOBU753Okgs0sm70NPVpi
 3ZAWPMxcpVYXj9tYFl6y7uNR+MvHdVubBpGUjw7R/2szq1wlHHUqqcC/sTaj2O2e
 08hY3TclZnzlED+XeNePsSpT4ALuyjcEkHgWlPDsAh4MWdUgxX797gFgEgqUo4dX
 IHrPxUrZWeuV2EjO3X21JrfEYI6Nw0aQMsecJ3FfzB986z44YRfGazn8ytvdj45K
 shzrUvQzL7FtGrj37c9vw010cmEQEaGjWlbpcWyMsI0XyUb+q/9lG2+d8cl9G5TC
 PX0bTxOrbvGFO9D8EH0xdGk6ZFvy0MWmBclNXE5F6NRfTUPtC5azaSnAl4Mdn7Lw
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3XLWWse2yoYAhBB7Wk9aDV5JxXSthKevIbh0bhwi2Xmwc8EiKeI6mw>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BE888E4120;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:19:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps>
In-Reply-To: <f4743db9-8e33-550d-0456-4f932e72f96c@broadcom.com>
References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps> <f4743db9-8e33-550d-0456-4f932e72f96c@broadcom.com>
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 22:19:10 -0000

18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden:
> On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style 
> rather than go your own way.

But our way is better! :)
And it has been decided in the Technical Board.