Hi Russell,

2017-12-11 22:46 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref]:

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:34:17PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

quoted

IMHO, even if we use SPDX license identifier, I recommend to use
C-style comments as many other files do, since it is C code.
If SPDX identifier requires C++ style, that is SPDX parser's issue
and should be fixed to get it from C-style comment.

See the numerous emails on this subject already.  The issue of C
vs C++ comments has come up many times by many different people, but
the result is the same.  That's not going to happen.  Linux kernel
C files are required to use "//" for the SPDX identifier by order
of Linus Torvalds.

OK, I got it.

Linus has also revealed in that discussion that he has a preference
for "//" style commenting for single comments, so it seems that the
kernel coding style may change - but there is no desire for patches
to "clean up" single line comments to use "//".

Thank you for making it clear.

Then what I'm considering is copyright notice lines. Those are usually
treat as the header lines, not single line. So

+// SDPX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+// sni_ave.c - Socionext UniPhier AVE ethernet driver
+// Copyright 2014 Panasonic Corporation
+// Copyright 2015-2017 Socionext Inc.

is acceptable? or should we keep C-style header lines for new drivers?

+// SDPX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * sni_ave.c - Socionext UniPhier AVE ethernet driver
+ * Copyright 2014 Panasonic Corporation
+ * Copyright 2015-2017 Socionext Inc.
+ */

I just concern that those lines are not "single". that's all. :)

For further information, and to see the discussion that has already
happened, the arguments that have been made about style, see the
threads for the patch series that tglx has been posting wrt documenting
the SPDX stuff for the kernel.

OK, got it.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/16/663


Thanks,

Thanks (let's stop rehashing the same arguments.)

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu