Re: [Minios-devel] [UNIKRAFT PATCHv4 18/43] plat/include: Define address offsets of boot stack and pagetable

[Simon Kuenzer <simon.kuenzer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13.07.2018 11:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/07/18 08:58, Simon Kuenzer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thank you for your feedback on SPDX.
>
> > On 09.07.2018 12:10, Wei Chen wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/plat/common/include/arm/arm64/cpu_defs.h
> > > > b/plat/common/include/arm/arm64/cpu_defs.h
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000..b7eba93
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/plat/common/include/arm/arm64/cpu_defs.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause */
> > > > IIRC, the goal of SPDX is to avoid to copy the full header afterwards.
> > > > Can we please do one or the other but not both?
> > > Actually, the copyright header confused me a lot. I think I need a guide
> > > @Simon Kuenzer (simon.kuenzer@xxxxxxxxx) : (
> > Hum, good question. We actually treated the SPDX header as optional 
> > addition and require you to provide at least the License text. If a 
> > file has none of both, the project license applies as fall-back.
> > With SPDX we originally wanted to enable automated tooling that uses 
> > those headers to check for licenses compatibilities. But we did not 
> > try it yet and SPDX might be incomplete for some files.
> > But in general I have my concerns that SPDX alone is enough for 
> > defining a license for the code (please not note that I am not a 
> > lawyer). This is the reason why we ended up with both for all files
> With the full text it is fairly easy to make a mistake in the wording 
> and not spotting it during review. To give a concrete example, we 
> mistakenly accepted copyright with for GPLv2+ in Xen. This was not 
> spotted until recently because there are only a couple of words difference.
Interesting. This is a good point why we should take SPDX seriously. 
Especially since Unikraft retrieves code from various places.
> So I think I would encourage contributors to use SPDX whenever it is 
> possible.
I agree.

> FWIW, Linux folks seems to be happy with only SPDX tag.
Hum, we should probably revisit our original decision at some point. I 
also found that Linux uses even a slight different format for adding the 
SPDX comments:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html

I am not sure yet how much our notes are compatible with the tooling. 
But at least we are putting them already and converting should less 
problematic. ;-)
> Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Minios-devel mailing list
Minios-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/minios-devel