From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:11:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt0-f194.google.com with SMTP id l11so11317493qtj.10 for ; 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 , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps> From: Scott Branden Message-ID: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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.