On 04/14/2018 03:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:08:47PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> With c398f2df7ca4 ("checkpatch.pl: update from Linux kernel v4.16")
>> scripts/checkpatch.ps checks if the SPDX license identifier follows the
>> rules set forth in
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html
>>
>> If the SPDX license identifier is not in the first line or it does not
>> use the right comment style we get a warning like
>>
>> WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
>> #37: FILE: lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_unaligned.c:1:
>> +/*
>>
>> Do we want to apply the same rules as the Linux kernel project?
> 
> Ugh.  It also looks like it wouldn't be easy to make it a relaxed check.
> So we can either ignore SPDX_LICENSE_TAG in .checkpatch.conf (and be no
> worse but not better than before) or a coccinelle script to whack all of
> our current tags into kernel-style tags?
> 

I have verified that --ignore SPDX_LICENSE_TAG suppresses the warning.

The warning is anyway only relevant for new files and for header
changes. So there is no real need for setting the ignore flag if we want
to follow the Linux style in future.

My question is whether for future files we want to follow it.

Best regards

Heinrich
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to