Re: [PATCH v13 11/13] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX
> > headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I
> > guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add
> > SPDX headers in the first place that was the example I was given. Still
> > checkpatch.pl complains about C99-style comments.
> >
> > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl? How those commits were ever
> > accepted?
> 
> See Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. Headers should go with
> C-style comments:
> 
>    The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment.  The comment
>    style depends on the file type::
> 
>       C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>       C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> 
> And:
> 
>    If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
>    appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This
>    is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header
>    files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where
>    'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but
>    there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style
>    comments.
> 
> The ones that got in are probably either old or they slipped through
> (and they do not break the build).

Thank you, this clears things up. Highly appreciated!

> Cheers,
> Miguel

/Jarkko