spdxcheck.py complains:
drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL
which is correct because GPL is not a valid identifier. Of course this
could have been caught by checkpatch.pl _before_ submitting or merging the
patch.
WARNING: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL' is not supported in LICENSES/...
#19: FILE: drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c:1:
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
Which is absolutely hillarious as the commit introducing this wreckage says
in the changelog:
There was a checkpatch complain:
"Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag".
Oh well. Replacing a checkpatch warning by a different checkpatch warning
is a really useful exercise.
Use the proper GPL-2.0 identifier which is what the boiler plate in the
file had originally.
Fixes: e75e3a125b40 ("drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Put an SPDX tag")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
index ad969d9fc981..c2644a9fe80f 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Power supply driver for the goldfish emulator
*
Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
sent, maybe missed this one.
At the bottom the file says
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
and
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
makes it inconsistent.
Regards,
Roman.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:51 AM Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> spdxcheck.py complains:
>
> drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL
>
> which is correct because GPL is not a valid identifier. Of course this
> could have been caught by checkpatch.pl _before_ submitting or merging the
> patch.
>
> WARNING: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL' is not supported in LICENSES/...
> #19: FILE: drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c:1:
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
>
> Which is absolutely hillarious as the commit introducing this wreckage says
> in the changelog:
>
> There was a checkpatch complain:
>
> "Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag".
>
> Oh well. Replacing a checkpatch warning by a different checkpatch warning
> is a really useful exercise.
>
> Use the proper GPL-2.0 identifier which is what the boiler plate in the
> file had originally.
>
> Fixes: e75e3a125b40 ("drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Put an SPDX tag")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> index ad969d9fc981..c2644a9fe80f 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> /*
> * Power supply driver for the goldfish emulator
> *
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
> sent, maybe missed this one.
>
> At the bottom the file says
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> and
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> makes it inconsistent.
No, please read include/linux/module.h in 5.1-rc1, that nightmare is now fixed up.
Also, you were inconsistent from the beginning with the text at the top
of the file, so that was your issue to start with :)
Also, please do not top post.
thanks,
greg k-h
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
> sent, maybe missed this one.
>
> At the bottom the file says
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> and
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> makes it inconsistent.
No. It does not.
1) The module license is not a precise license indicator.
2) SPDX License identifiers are well defined and standardized. 'GPL' is
NOT a valid SPDX identifier.
The usage of SPDX identifiers and the relevance of the MODULE_LICENSE()
string are well documented in:
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
or for your conveniance at:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html
Thanks,
tglx