From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDF1C433E2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79022067D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="b9hkZJD/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B79022067D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A38A20490; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xOCxWpr8syPL; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B055220439; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941A2C07FF; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00FBC0733 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D793A20490 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xsXy+jQc6Wo2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com (mail-il1-f195.google.com [209.85.166.195]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4EAA20439 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 05:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id r12so4022210ilh.4 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LwIvNulEmAbsM2gx0YbS/YXV2vtYaDwCyihzcIjueGk=; b=b9hkZJD/wLCMWFrq4X240yT+rLJR9oH1/uy1cf5dLq+G8wbzA3W/qMiy8jnMy5xxvr yokBpHdZCI9LzUUrfRQgYK+3dpYWvmnNBUG+TpIyQWiW+22Zr6N1R8cM7QohI4NIM9Ef yePsJ4jdzyxKg1iXUfLhZ/othKlIEjub5XFG2yJhEGZGTDjAadEmpxxujMhQNvkLXYUM 8WbCII1a4k9U5PG9/zf4z2g2qGIKUSEtouJ03M5w9iPhehvP47C9GmkvhdG/VQXrwEsC NH9x+CsMrHHSqEX/Qebb7nbegQVB9ENE2IDpIOSZT5DuX6leLYNJkDGkSBfDNTZlE/ZH qIdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LwIvNulEmAbsM2gx0YbS/YXV2vtYaDwCyihzcIjueGk=; b=NvIVIGSlsjJEc76aq72wH59+0ryPJ+2Y1ybolgGj4jEehk8oGOnnW5Lo/o/jzIIuZ1 n2DWb25j4mN3PvS2dDWpJWa92eJQYsxZqjNBGsGejLj07mXMRyUE9E+lGtFv4QmRbMPq FBDuoL7tGoqBk+Ti1qgdzliXiiI2WkOLq8CXrdV1eT9lpyOGtqmglQZBvlE8fvwuRkXU MicdbdAjtlvi5X3TXHulelb1ghvNObGoEGeKqMeCoTghYukPam2MJOnwOgffTeNaaCV2 7XuWOyoLAX9S8rRXmi5KR3puTVfMlqDyJs7J3UU3j+gJR6XULK06TpnpsA/Yd0gA+8oc pkNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hdB1p8b+5RP3PC1j0oaheLikvXprqIeZQ3kcZcJeKzKYWI8PE S9ZujVAp7Yl6EwFJgp/msiPFhta3xOYwfLXzPsw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUM+T6S7FYPiG1fE0zdIqR36iVPuO+4s94dGfGEx+XsKXer3Im3WGAD6poy3jJXDC2ASgHUoc5k4sTTHSHIio= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d2c6:: with SMTP id w6mr2899860ilg.24.1594877483062; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200713095740.mi3cnx7tccoetxgc@mrinalpandey> In-Reply-To: From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:31:11 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mrinal Pandey Cc: Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] checkpatch: Fix SPDX license check for scripts X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6041997337783059944==" Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" --===============6041997337783059944== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d6999205aa885958" --000000000000d6999205aa885958 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:15 AM Mrinal Pandey wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:33 AM Lukas Bulwahn > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Mrinal Pandey wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:16 AM Lukas Bulwahn >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mrinal Pandey wrote: >> > >> > > In all the scripts, the SPDX license should be on the second >> line, >> > > the first line being the "sh-bang", but checkpatch issues a >> warning >> > > "Misplaced SPDX-License-Identifier tag - use line 1 instead" >> for the >> > > scripts that have SPDX license in the second line. >> > > >> > > However, this warning is not issued when checkpatch is run on a >> file using >> > > `-f` option. The case for files has been handled gracefully by >> changing >> > > `$checklicenseline` to `2` but a corresponding check when >> running checkpatch >> > > on a commit hash is missing. >> > > >> > > I noticed this false positive while running checkpatch on the >> set of >> > > commits from v5.7 to v5.8-rc1 of the kernel on the commits >> which modified >> > > a script file. >> > > >> > > This check is missing in checkpatch since commit a8da38a9cf0e >> > > ("checkpatch: add test for SPDX-License-Identifier on wrong >> line #") >> > > when the corresponding rule was first commited. >> > > >> > > Fix this by setting `$checklicenseline` to `2` when the diff >> content that >> > > is being checked originates from a script, thus, informing >> checkpatch that >> > > the SPDX license should be on the second line. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Mrinal Pandey >> > > --- >> > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 +++ >> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> > > index 4c820607540b..bbffd0c4449d 100755 >> > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> > > @@ -3218,6 +3218,9 @@ sub process { >> > > next if ($realfile !~ /\.(h|c|s|S|sh|dtsi|dts)$/); >> > > >> > > # check for using SPDX-License-Identifier on the wrong line >> number >> > > + if ($realfile =~ /^scripts/) { >> > > + $checklicenseline = 2; >> > > + } >> > >> > I think this is somehow wrong here. The check for >> checklicenseline = 2 >> > looks very different above. >> > >> > Why does -f work and using a patch file not work? >> > >> > >> > Sir, >> > >> > I am going to explain my observation based on file >> `scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-fallback.sh` and >> > commit hash `37f8173dd849`. >> > >> > If we are checking against the file, `checklicenseline` is set to 1 and >> when `realline` is 1 the above >> > `if` block is triggered, then we check if this line is of the form >> `#!/` using the regular expression >> > `^[ \+]\s*\#\!\s*\/`. If this is the case we set `checklicenseline` to >> `2` informing checkpatch that it should >> > expect license on the second line and this works all fine for a file. >> > The `if` block below my proposed changes evaluates to false in this >> case and thus it emits no false warning. >> > >> > However, If we are checking a diff content, the above `if` block is not >> triggered at all. This is >> > because `realline` stores the actual line number of the line we are >> checking currently out of diff content. >> > This value is 2 because SPDX identifier is indeed at the second line in >> the file but `checklicenseline` is still >> > `1`. >> > `realline` will never become equal to 1 again and thus the above `if` >> condition will never be true in this case. >> > Even if the above `if` block is triggered it would not update >> `checklicenseline` to 2 as the regular expression >> > is not satisfied since we don't have sh-bang in diff content and just >> the SPDX tag. >> > If we don't do this, the `if` block below evaluates to true when >> `realline` is 2 and `checklicensline` is `1` >> > leading >> > to the emission of a false warning. >> > >> >> So, maybe this whole logic needs to be reworked. If you do not know the >> first line, you need to have a different criteria in the first place >> to determine if you expect the license tag in the first or the second, >> e.g., the file extension, and then checking line 1 for a shebang is just >> sanity checking. If it is of a specific file extension, you know line 1 >> and it is not a shebang, that is probably worth noting as a different >> recommendation in checkpatch.pl anyway. >> > > Sir, > > When we know the first line, i.e. we are running checkpatch against a > file, the existing logic > works fine. We probably don't want to induce any changes there. > > Why not? Do you think we would break things there? Then we should not touch the code at all. Do you think we cannot test it properly after the change? Then we should think about how we make a proper regression test suite for that. But when we don't know the first line, if am not wrong, it would go > somewhat like: > if (the file is a script) { > if (the first line is shebang) { > if (the second line is SPDX) { > All good > } else { > Issue a misplaced or missing SPDX tag warning > } > } else { > Issue a missing shebang warning > } > } else { > if (the first line is SPDX) { > All good > } else { > Issue a misplaced or missing SPDX tag warning > } > } > > Basically agree, but that logic applies when you know the first line as well (and only, right?). What if you do not know the first line, how would you check "the first line is shebang" if you do not know the first line? The missing shebang warning probably needs to go elsewhere in the whole script. > Lukas >> >> >> > So, what I did was to check if the diff content we are checking >> actually comes from a script, if yes, we can set >> > `checklicenseline` to `2` to avoid this confusion. >> > >> >> Why would you think that scripts are only in scripts? >> >> How about first listing all files where the SPDX tag is in line 2 in the >> current repository, e.g., v5.8-rc5? >> >> Then, we look at that list and determine a suitable criteria for looking >> in line 2 for the SPDX tag. >> > > Yes, the scripts are not only in scripts. I have listed all the files > where the SPDX tag should be > on the second line. I've attached the list for reference. We should > probably be checking the file > extension to determine if the tag needs to be on the second line or not. > The documentation says the SPDX tag should be present in all source files. > Do these source files include > Documentation files too? > > How did you create that list? Agree (if the way you created that list makes sense). File extension seems to cover all cases, and checking for the directory 'scripts' does not. We might also add a further sanity check in checkpatch.pl if someone adds an executable file that is not with extension sh, pl, or py. Lukas > --000000000000d6999205aa885958 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:15 AM Mrina= l Pandey <mrinalmni@gmail.com= > wrote:


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:33 AM Lukas Bu= lwahn <luka= s.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Mrinal Pandey wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:16 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wr= ote:
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mrinal Pandey wrote: >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> In all the scripts, the SPDX license sh= ould be on the second line,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> the first line being the "sh-bang&= quot;, but checkpatch issues a warning
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> "Misplaced SPDX-License-Identifier= tag - use line 1 instead" for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> scripts that have SPDX license in the s= econd line.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> However, this warning is not issued whe= n checkpatch is run on a file using
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> `-f` option. The case for files has bee= n handled gracefully by changing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> `$checklicenseline` to `2` but a corres= ponding check when running checkpatch
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> on a commit hash is missing.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I noticed this false positive while run= ning checkpatch on the set of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> commits from v5.7 to v5.8-rc1 of the ke= rnel on the commits which modified
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> a script file.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> This check is missing in checkpatch sin= ce commit a8da38a9cf0e
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> ("checkpatch: add test for SPDX-Li= cense-Identifier on wrong line #")
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> when the corresponding rule was first c= ommited.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Fix this by setting `$checklicenseline`= to `2` when the diff content that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> is being checked originates from a scri= pt, thus, informing checkpatch that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> the SPDX license should be on the secon= d line.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Signed-off-by: Mrinal Pandey <mrinalmni@gmail.com&= gt;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> ---
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 +++
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scr= ipts/= checkpatch.pl
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> index 4c820607540b..bbffd0c4449d 100755=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> @@ -3218,6 +3218,9 @@ sub process {
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0next if ($realfile !~ /\.(h|c|s|S|sh|dtsi|dts)$/);
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 # check for using SPDX-License-Id= entifier on the wrong line number
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> +=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0if ($realfile =3D~ /^scripts/) {
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> +=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 $checklicenseline =3D 2;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> +=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0}
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I think this is somehow wrong here. The chec= k for checklicenseline =3D 2
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0looks very different above.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Why does -f work and using a patch file not = work?
>
>
> Sir,
>
> I am going to explain my observation based on file `scripts/atomic/gen= -atomic-fallback.sh` and
> commit hash `37f8173dd849`.
>
> If we are checking against the file, `checklicenseline` is set to 1 an= d when `realline` is 1 the above
> `if` block is triggered, then we check if this line is of the form `#!= /` using the regular expression
> `^[ \+]\s*\#\!\s*\/`. If this is the case we set `checklicenseline` to= `2` informing checkpatch that it should
> expect license on the second line and this works all fine for a file.<= br> > The `if` block below my proposed changes evaluates to false in this ca= se and thus it emits no false warning.
>
> However, If we are checking a diff content, the above `if` block is no= t triggered at all. This is
> because `realline` stores the actual line number of the line we are ch= ecking currently out of diff content.
> This value is 2 because SPDX identifier is indeed at the second line i= n the file but `checklicenseline` is still
> `1`.
> `realline` will never become equal to 1 again and thus the above `if` = condition will never be true in this case.
> Even if the above `if` block is triggered it would not update `checkli= censeline` to 2 as the regular expression
> is not satisfied since we don't have sh-bang in diff content and j= ust the SPDX tag.
> If we don't do this, the `if` block below evaluates to true when `= realline` is 2 and `checklicensline` is `1`
> leading
> to the emission of a false warning.
>

So, maybe this whole logic needs to be reworked. If you do not know the first line, you need to have a different criteria in the first place
to determine if you expect the license tag in the first or the second,
e.g., the file extension, and then checking line 1 for a shebang is just sanity checking. If it is of a specific file extension, you know line 1
and it is not a shebang, that is probably worth noting as a different
recommendation in checkpatch.pl anyway.

= Sir,

When we know the first line, i.e. we are= running checkpatch against a file, the existing logic
works fine= . We probably don't want to induce any changes there.

Why not? Do you t= hink we would break things there? Then we should not touch the code at all.=
Do you think we cannot test it properly after the change? Then w= e should think about how we make a proper regression test suite for that.

But when w= e don't know the first line, if am not wrong, it would go somewhat like= :
if (the file is a script) {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if= (the first line is shebang) {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 if (the second line is SPDX) {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 All good
=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 } else {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Issue a misplaced or missing = SPDX tag warning
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 } else {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Issue a missing shebang warni= ng
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }
} else {
=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (the first line is SPDX) {
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 All good
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 } else {=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Issue a misplaced or = missing SPDX tag warning
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }
}


Basically ag= ree, but that logic applies when you know the first line as well (and only,= right?). What if you do not know the first line, how would you check "= ;the first line is shebang" if you do not know the first line?


The missing shebang warning probably needs= to go elsewhere in the whole script.

=C2=A0
=
Lukas


> So, what I did was to check if the diff content we are checking actual= ly comes from a script, if yes, we can set
> `checklicenseline` to `2` to avoid this confusion.
>

Why would you think that scripts are only in scripts?

How about first listing all files where the SPDX tag is in line 2 in the current repository, e.g., v5.8-rc5?

Then, we look at that list and determine a suitable criteria for looking in line 2 for the SPDX tag.

Yes, the sc= ripts are not only in scripts. I have listed all the files where the SPDX t= ag should be
on the second line. I've attached the list for r= eference. We should probably be checking the file
extension to de= termine if the tag needs to be on the second line or not.
The doc= umentation says the SPDX tag should be present in all source files. Do thes= e source files include
Documentation files too?


How did you create that lis= t?
Agree (if the way you created that list makes sense). File ext= ension seems to cover all cases, and checking for the directory 'script= s' does not.

We might also add a further sanit= y check in checkpatch.pl if someone ad= ds an executable file that is not with extension sh, pl, or py.
<= br>
Lukas
--000000000000d6999205aa885958-- --===============6041997337783059944== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees --===============6041997337783059944==--