[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
"for-russell" branch.

btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.

Let me know if I need to do attempt #3 ..

The following changes since commit 1097d7cef683c30f9768007daae2e961a0686a10:
  Linus Torvalds (1):
        Merge branch 'urgent' of git://git.kernel.org/.../brodo/pcmcia-2.6

are available in the git repository at:

  git://codeaurora.org/quic/kernel/dwalker/linux-msm.git for-russell

Daniel Walker (2):
      arm: msm: allow ARCH_MSM to have v7 cpus
      arm: msm: add oprofile pmu support

Dave Estes (1):
      arm: mm: qsd8x50: Fix incorrect permission faults

Steve Muckle (1):
      arm: msm: define HAVE_CLK for ARCH_MSM

 arch/arm/Kconfig          |   11 ++++++-----
 arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c     |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mm/Kconfig       |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mm/abort-ev7.S   |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
"for-russell" branch.

btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.

Let me know if I need to do attempt #3 ..

The following changes since commit 1097d7cef683c30f9768007daae2e961a0686a10:
  Linus Torvalds (1):
        Merge branch 'urgent' of git://git.kernel.org/.../brodo/pcmcia-2.6

are available in the git repository at:

  git://codeaurora.org/quic/kernel/dwalker/linux-msm.git for-russell

Daniel Walker (2):
      arm: msm: allow ARCH_MSM to have v7 cpus
      arm: msm: add oprofile pmu support

Dave Estes (1):
      arm: mm: qsd8x50: Fix incorrect permission faults

Steve Muckle (1):
      arm: msm: define HAVE_CLK for ARCH_MSM

 arch/arm/Kconfig          |   11 ++++++-----
 arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c     |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mm/Kconfig       |    2 ++
 arch/arm/mm/abort-ev7.S   |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> "for-russell" branch.
> 
> btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.

Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
"Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> "for-russell" branch.
> 
> btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.

Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
"Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

When I brought up this point back in January or so, it was agreed that 
such copyright notices were going to be removed.

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-January/008824.html


Nicolas

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

When I brought up this point back in January or so, it was agreed that 
such copyright notices were going to be removed.

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-January/008824.html


Nicolas

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 19:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > 
> > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> 
> When I brought up this point back in January or so, it was agreed that 
> such copyright notices were going to be removed.
> 
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-January/008824.html

I don't recall any hard agreements on it. Even reading the thread now,
it had to do with a minor change of only a few lines ..

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 19:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > 
> > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> 
> When I brought up this point back in January or so, it was agreed that 
> such copyright notices were going to be removed.
> 
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-January/008824.html

I don't recall any hard agreements on it. Even reading the thread now,
it had to do with a minor change of only a few lines ..

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
I rather not have too.

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
I rather not have too.

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > 
> > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> 
> You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> I rather not have too.

The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.

By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.

Personally, I think this practice (adding copyright headers to pre-
existing files not authored by those claiming copyright ) is equivalent
to code theft.

It's far better to leave files without copyright headers if they start
out like that, or locate the original authors (Catalin) and have them
add a header.

Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > 
> > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> 
> You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> I rather not have too.

The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.

By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.

Personally, I think this practice (adding copyright headers to pre-
existing files not authored by those claiming copyright ) is equivalent
to code theft.

It's far better to leave files without copyright headers if they start
out like that, or locate the original authors (Catalin) and have them
add a header.

Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > > 
> > > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > > 
> > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > 
> > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > I rather not have too.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.

Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.

> By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.

There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.


Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > > > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > > > "for-russell" branch.
> > > > 
> > > > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > > > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> > > 
> > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > 
> > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > I rather not have too.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.

Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.

> By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.

There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.


Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > > 
> > > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > > 
> > > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > > I rather not have too.
> > 
> > The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> > file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.
> 
> Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
> remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
> wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.
> 
> > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> 
> There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
Maybe sane solution is to write "portions copyright"? people will not
 dig into git history when there's just one author listed.
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > > 
> > > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > > 
> > > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > > I rather not have too.
> > 
> > The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> > file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.
> 
> Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
> remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
> wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.
> 
> > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> 
> There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
Maybe sane solution is to write "portions copyright"? people will not
 dig into git history when there's just one author listed.
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 20:17 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > > > 
> > > > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > > > I rather not have too.
> > > 
> > > The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> > > file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.
> > 
> > Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
> > remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
> > wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.
> > 
> > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > 
> > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> Maybe sane solution is to write "portions copyright"? people will not
>  dig into git history when there's just one author listed.


I tried that in the generic kernel once, and Andrew told me to remove
those parts because we had git history for that.. So I don't know, maybe
we need to require boiler plate copyrights on all files, and fix ones
that don't already have them.

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 20:17 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> > > > > throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> > > > > "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.
> > > > 
> > > > You want the license and copyright removed? I can remove them, although
> > > > I rather not have too.
> > > 
> > > The fact of the matter is that "Code Aurora Forum" did not create this
> > > file, and their copyright does not cover the code which is already there.
> > 
> > Before we discuss it lets just be clear that I've already offered to
> > remove the copyright, and license changes.. I've not said that I
> > wouldn't do that , in fact I'll make a new pull request now minus those.
> > 
> > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > 
> > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> Maybe sane solution is to write "portions copyright"? people will not
>  dig into git history when there's just one author listed.


I tried that in the generic kernel once, and Andrew told me to remove
those parts because we had git history for that.. So I don't know, maybe
we need to require boiler plate copyrights on all files, and fix ones
that don't already have them.

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> 
> There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.

I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
credits.

Again, it is best to keep copyright notices to files you create 
yourself, or files that you significantly enhanced and/or rewrote (like 
50% of the original content was replaced or the like).


Nicolas

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> 
> There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.

I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
credits.

Again, it is best to keep copyright notices to files you create 
yourself, or files that you significantly enhanced and/or rewrote (like 
50% of the original content was replaced or the like).


Nicolas

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > 
> > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> 
> I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
> don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
> files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
> credits.

Git history captures who wrote the code, not who owns the code. I work
for QuiC (Qualcomm Innovation Center) , however, the copyright is "Code
Aurora Forum" .. The git history may list me as "@codeaurora.com" or
"@quicinc.com" , so given that you really can't be sure of the copyright
just with git history.

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > 
> > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> 
> I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
> don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
> files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
> credits.

Git history captures who wrote the code, not who owns the code. I work
for QuiC (Qualcomm Innovation Center) , however, the copyright is "Code
Aurora Forum" .. The git history may list me as "@codeaurora.com" or
"@quicinc.com" , so given that you really can't be sure of the copyright
just with git history.

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > > 
> > > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> > 
> > I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
> > don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
> > files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
> > credits.
> 
> Git history captures who wrote the code, not who owns the code. I work
> for QuiC (Qualcomm Innovation Center) , however, the copyright is "Code
> Aurora Forum" .. The git history may list me as "@codeaurora.com" or
> "@quicinc.com" , so given that you really can't be sure of the copyright
> just with git history.

You may add any necessary clarifications in the commit log message.
The SOB tag is there for example.


Nicolas

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some
> > > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that
> > > > their copyright extends to everything in the file.  That's certainly
> > > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw
> > > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written.
> > > 
> > > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would
> > > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping
> > > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours.
> > 
> > I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you 
> > don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every 
> > files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution 
> > credits.
> 
> Git history captures who wrote the code, not who owns the code. I work
> for QuiC (Qualcomm Innovation Center) , however, the copyright is "Code
> Aurora Forum" .. The git history may list me as "@codeaurora.com" or
> "@quicinc.com" , so given that you really can't be sure of the copyright
> just with git history.

You may add any necessary clarifications in the commit log message.
The SOB tag is there for example.


Nicolas

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:


> 
> Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?

Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:


> 
> Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?

Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> 
> Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..

I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
principle.

If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):

 * ...
 * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
 * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.

The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

Personally, I wouldn't bother with adding a copyright header for 13
lines but your legal department may have a different view.

Note - that's my personal view only, the copyright of the work I produce
belongs to ARM Ltd.

-- 
Catalin

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> 
> Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..

I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
principle.

If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):

 * ...
 * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
 * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.

The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

Personally, I wouldn't bother with adding a copyright header for 13
lines but your legal department may have a different view.

Note - that's my personal view only, the copyright of the work I produce
belongs to ARM Ltd.

-- 
Catalin

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > 
> > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> 
> I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> principle.
> 
> If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> 
>  * ...
>  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
>  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> 
> The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

I were to add this what would I add for the "..." since there's nothing
in abort-ev6.S either.. None of the abort files appear to have
copyrights.

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > 
> > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> 
> I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> principle.
> 
> If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> 
>  * ...
>  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
>  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> 
> The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

I were to add this what would I add for the "..." since there's nothing
in abort-ev6.S either.. None of the abort files appear to have
copyrights.

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > 
> > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> 
> I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> principle.
> 
> If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> 
>  * ...
>  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
>  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> 
> The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git;a=commit;h=ed29a8097665ef86dd9a2d8a8a3b808ab70f28ee

that's the commit that brought in abort-ev6.S. The only copyrights I see
in that commit are,

linux/arch/arm/mm/tlb-v6.S
Copyright (C) 1997-2002 Russell King

include/asm-arm/atomic.h
Copyright (C) 1996 Russell King.
Copyright (C) 2002 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd

linux/arch/arm/mm/proc-v6.S
Copyright (C) 2001 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd.

Should I just add all these and give everyone credit?

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > 
> > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> 
> I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> principle.
> 
> If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> 
>  * ...
>  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
>  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> 
> The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> Solutions - that's the "..." part above).

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git;a=commit;h=ed29a8097665ef86dd9a2d8a8a3b808ab70f28ee

that's the commit that brought in abort-ev6.S. The only copyrights I see
in that commit are,

linux/arch/arm/mm/tlb-v6.S
Copyright (C) 1997-2002 Russell King

include/asm-arm/atomic.h
Copyright (C) 1996 Russell King.
Copyright (C) 2002 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd

linux/arch/arm/mm/proc-v6.S
Copyright (C) 2001 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd.

Should I just add all these and give everyone credit?

Daniel

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 23:10 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > >
> > > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> >
> > I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> > existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> > part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> > I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> > principle.
> >
> > If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> >
> >  * ...
> >  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
> >  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> >
> > The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> > likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> > Solutions - that's the "..." part above).
> 
> I were to add this what would I add for the "..." since there's nothing
> in abort-ev6.S either.. None of the abort files appear to have
> copyrights.

That's why I haven't added one either :). I think you can add Deep Blue
Solutions Ltd as well, unless Russell has any objections. But it's funny
for such a small file to have three copyright holders.

-- 
Catalin

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 23:10 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:50 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0100, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > Catalin, as the apparant author of this file, do you have a view on this?
> > >
> > > Looking at this file again, I don't think anyone could copyright
> > > anything in this file prior to us adding stuff .. It's like 4 lines of
> > > assembly prior to us adding 13 lines ..
> >
> > I don't think the amount of lines matter wrt GPL. I agree that the
> > existing 4 lines aren't anything important but if you consider them as
> > part of a bigger patch (commit bbe88886), they are not so insignificant.
> > I don't care much about these four lines, it's just a matter of
> > principle.
> >
> > If you want, you can add something like (the GPL preamble is fine):
> >
> >  * ...
> >  * Copyright (C) 2007 ARM Ltd.
> >  * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum.
> >
> > The reason why I haven't added a header is because this file was most
> > likely derived from abort-ev6.S (probably originating from Deep Blue
> > Solutions - that's the "..." part above).
> 
> I were to add this what would I add for the "..." since there's nothing
> in abort-ev6.S either.. None of the abort files appear to have
> copyrights.

That's why I haven't added one either :). I think you can add Deep Blue
Solutions Ltd as well, unless Russell has any objections. But it's funny
for such a small file to have three copyright holders.

-- 
Catalin

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> That's why I haven't added one either :). I think you can add Deep Blue
> Solutions Ltd as well, unless Russell has any objections. But it's funny
> for such a small file to have three copyright holders.

And also a tad ridiculous IMHO.  Makes S/N ratio very low.


Nicolas

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> That's why I haven't added one either :). I think you can add Deep Blue
> Solutions Ltd as well, unless Russell has any objections. But it's funny
> for such a small file to have three copyright holders.

And also a tad ridiculous IMHO.  Makes S/N ratio very low.


Nicolas

Re: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

Ok, I updated the same branch .. It's minus the copyright and license ,
and I rebased it onto a more recent linus tree ..

Daniel

[GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 22:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Ok, attempt #2 .. It's the same set of patches , only it's against
> > mainline linus tree of the moment. I force updated it into the same
> > "for-russell" branch.
> > 
> > btw, you might want to pay close attention to the "Fix incorrect
> > permission faults" patch. That's the only non-small patch in the queue.
> 
> Well, I don't think it's fair on those who created abort-ev7.S to go
> throwing a boilerplate copyright on the file which makes it look like
> "Code Aurora Forum." wrote the entire thing.

Ok, I updated the same branch .. It's minus the copyright and license ,
and I rebased it onto a more recent linus tree ..

Daniel