On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:59:28PM +0000, Nabih Estefan wrote:
> When running the license check, if we are updating a license it is
> possible for the checkpatch script to test against old license lines
> instead of newer ones, since the removal lines appear before the
> addition lines in a .patch file.
While we match the "SPDX-License-Identifier" text in any context,
the "file must have SDPX" validation is only performed against
files that are entirely new:
# Called at the end of processing a diff hunk for a file
sub process_end_of_file {
my $fileinfo = shift;
if ($fileinfo->{action} eq "new" &&
!exists $fileinfo->{facts}->{sawspdx}) {
...raise error ....
> Fix this by skipping over lines that start with "-" in the checkpatch
> script.
A new file cannot have any "-" lines present, so there isn't any
bug that needs fixing AFAICT. Can you show any patch or commit
where this would have made a difference to what checkpatch.pl
reports ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 833f20f555..c57a423f9f 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1813,7 +1813,8 @@ sub process {
> }
>
> # Check SPDX-License-Identifier references a permitted license
> - if ($rawline =~ m,SPDX-License-Identifier: (.*?)(\*/)?\s*$,) {
> + if (($rawline =~ m,SPDX-License-Identifier: (.*?)(\*/)?\s*$,) &&
> + $rawline !~ /^-/) {
> $fileinfo->{facts}->{sawspdx} = 1;
> &checkspdx($realfile, $1);
> }
> --
> 2.51.0.384.g4c02a37b29-goog
>
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
