Re: [PATCH for-4.18] docs: Delete kconfig docs to fix licensing violation

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.11.2023 23:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 11:59 pm, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.11.2023 15:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> These 3 Kconfig docs were imported from Linux erroneously.  They are
>>>> GPL-2.0-only in Linux, but have no SPDX tag and were placed in such a way 
>>>> to
>>>> be included by the blanket statement saying that all RST files are 
>>>> CC-BY-4.0.
>>>>
>>>> We should not be carrying a shadow copy of these docs.  They aren't even 
>>>> wired
>>>> into our Sphinx docs, and anyone wanting to refer to Kconfig docs is going 
>>>> to
>>>> look at the Linux docs anyway.  These, and more docs can be found at:
>>>>
>>>>   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/
>>>>
>>>> which also have corrections vs the snapshot we took.
>>> Imo this reference ...
>>>
>>>> Fixes: f80fe2b34f08 ("xen: Update Kconfig to Linux v5.4")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> CC: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Henry Wang <Henry.Wang@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  docs/misc/kconfig-language.rst       | 701 ---------------------------
>>>>  docs/misc/kconfig-macro-language.rst | 247 ----------
>>>>  docs/misc/kconfig.rst                | 304 ------------
>>>>  3 files changed, 1252 deletions(-)
>>>>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig-language.rst
>>>>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig-macro-language.rst
>>>>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig.rst
>>> ... wants putting into, say, the last of these three files you delete, as
>>> a replacement. I can't spot any other place where we would have such a
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> One problem I see with deleting our shadow copy is that by referring to
>>> Linux'es doc, the wrong impression may arise that whatever new features
>>> they invent we also support. Thoughts? (If nothing else, I'd expect this
>>> aspect to be mentioned / justified in the description.)
>> I think the ideal solution would be to replace the shadow copies with a
>> link to the Linux docs of a specific Linux tag (v5.4), instead of
>> generic Linux master. I am not sure where to place the links though.
> 
> I don't personally think we need to keep any other reference around. 
> They're not interesting, because they're not going to be found by anyone
> except those who already know they're there, and won't need to refer to
> them for the kind of content they provide.
> 
> Kconfig isn't a fast-moving target, and there's nothing new in Linux vs
> what we've got here.  The only interesting difference between us and
> Linux is the fact we don't use modules, and we didn't even strip that
> out of the shadow copy.
> 
> We do have xen/tools/kconfig/README.source which states where it came from.
> 
> I could be persuaded to add the following hunk.  What we have isn't
> precisely v5.4 anyway - we've got some reasonable differences in the
> makefile side of things.
> 
> ~Andrew
> 
> diff --git a/xen/tools/kconfig/README.source
> b/xen/tools/kconfig/README.source
> index 44631f68e8..ac394106b9 100644
> --- a/xen/tools/kconfig/README.source
> +++ b/xen/tools/kconfig/README.source
> @@ -5,5 +5,7 @@ in this part of the Xen source tree.
>  
>  xen/tools/kconfig
>  -----------------
> -The kconfig directory was originally imported from the linux kernel
> -git tree at kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git, path: scripts/kconfig
> +The kconfig directory was originally imported from the Linux kernel
> +git tree at kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git, path: scripts/kconfig of
> +roughly v5.4.  Linux's documentation can be found at:
> +https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/

With that addition:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan