On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:21:40 +0000,
Luis Chamberlain [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:32:51PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:07:53 +0000,
Nick Alcock [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without
Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations
are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro
in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing
object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe
might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message.

So remove it in the files in this commit, none of which can be built as
modules.

Signed-off-by: Nick Alcock <redacted>
Suggested-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-modules@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <redacted>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
index 25fd8ee66565..4bbfa2b0a4df 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c

@@ -390,4 +390,3 @@ IRQCHIP_MATCH("renesas,rzg2l-irqc", rzg2l_irqc_init)
 IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER_END(rzg2l_irqc)
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Renesas RZ/G2L IRQC Driver");
-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

I'm probably missing some context here, but I find it odd to drop
something that is a important piece of information because of what
looks like a tooling regression.

It also means that once a random driver gets enabled as a module, it
won't load because it is now missing a MODULE_LICENSE() annotation.

It feels like MODULE_LICENSE should instead degrade to an empty
statement when MODULE isn't defined. Why isn't this approach the
correct one?

I expect the cover letter would have some pretty good information on
this, but lore.kernel.org doesn't seem to have it at the time I write
this ("Message-ID [off-list ref] not
found").

The right thing is to not even have this and have the module license
inferred from the SPDX tag. But for now we want to remove the tag from
things we know for sure are not modules.

I understand that you want to remove it. I don't get why this is the
right solution. Can you please assume that, in this particular
instance, I am a complete idiot and spell it out for me?

Why isn't that a problem for modules that are compiled-in?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.