On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 01:58:11PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.11.2022 12:28, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > Fixes: 81f559e97974 ("make error codes a formal part of the ABI")
> > Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com>
> > ---
> > xen/include/public/errno.h | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > index 5c53af6af9..6bdc8c5079 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> > +
> > /*
> > * There are two expected ways of including this header.
> > *
>
> Doesn't this require at least part of Stefano's "[PATCH v4 0/4] introduce
> SPDX" as a prereq? I notice quite a few files already use leading SPDX
> comments, but perhaps wrongly so without it being explained anywhere in
> tree what this is about?
I don't think Stefano's work is required or needed, beside pointing out
that new file should use SPDX, and providing guidelines.
It seems that using the SPDX identifier in a project without explanation
is enough. It could be seen as a useless comment if not understood (but
useful for some tools) and in this case the COPYING files (in our case)
would tell the licence been used.
But, if used, "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" have a very specific
meaning, it means that the licence used in question is
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html, and Stefano's work shouldn't change
that meaning.
Thanks,
--
Anthony PERARD
