From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
Received: from mail-qt0-f194.google.com (mail-qt0-f194.google.com
 [209.85.216.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49154187
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:11:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-qt0-f194.google.com with SMTP id l11so11317493qtj.10
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google;
 h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent
 :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
 bh=nO5FYhdoTVmY6/Cl2jSWvXjgRJnBsbrgwWs8uVdXfHk=;
 b=WhBRu4qN0NnOyhbyldrmNo2P2NAArepQGfZ1HtgCDFtDBiYdpd/5Bk+ZhqISxqKGij
 O3OncI7LXpkMxtj9tXTeDXeeSr0lFwdNlyjkXNy2Gj+jsO91Y5YoEc7Y+cuGNyfdbNFJ
 K8+RkZi7vQQuxoEsPLgqODfYv+VW2QuLTw5JM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date
 :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding
 :content-language;
 bh=nO5FYhdoTVmY6/Cl2jSWvXjgRJnBsbrgwWs8uVdXfHk=;
 b=HEKpuyvfBUo3rgZmbsJf7ZlpLynLk0wwGa0DeRxGD3I6Oaf6Ks22N+vIuJxo0NMDOJ
 QNAbQkQSEigB7s497Wq+7rUdVN7duvDvQvV3HJ6xOONSO7kvtxKnHs448tmLCHtWJ1rn
 CdkfwMcxeD+onmdhsgY0EVMp+ySrvgQeb3aXyt1O19d7NoMfTpLRcTdbMSCxxeBhd+Bu
 jcejsTDZrgwWdCZGszdz1SBxy0R/piP5zhITHf8UMcBzfgZYTq+dkJh8BNOIlCuolfFf
 7XDeY5r8YQsDUdyN2bQvZrIVdBARlvxJPDHCoAER2hFtQuzekw07ElHBFE9pnmPZAb9l
 FzQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tC3rUnnqW23B83ZvSSEvYixb8TJhshrdIdX3QYLcAP+bnTQCmx0
 AMfGmK4zCH4c2cUm119Z7P7jDu1wD2A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/g1X7m0EhNJP7bU6TFdF+ueQKJ1tMs5jzPi6BPiQ4dcVFsx3WGH6q5ukQbnDzMRTvxo/G87A==
X-Received: by 10.237.59.9 with SMTP id p9mr3946591qte.240.1524003108098;
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.136.13.65] ([192.19.224.250])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm10799910qkc.27.2018.04.17.15.11.46
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps>
From: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <f4743db9-8e33-550d-0456-4f932e72f96c@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:11:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 22:11:49 -0000



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.