Checkpatch False positive

Checkpatch.pl should probably exclude *.rst files from the SPDX License
Identifier check, since they are documentational files, like *.txt. 
Here is the warning message I got on a recent documentation patch I
created.

WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
#28: FILE: Documentation/networking/fm10k.rst:1:
+Linux* Base Driver for Intel(R) Ethernet Multi-host Controller

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 162 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-
inplace.

.apply/v4-Documentation-fm10k-Add-kernel-documentation.patch has style
problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:

Checkpatch.pl should probably exclude *.rst files from the SPDX License
Identifier check, since they are documentational files, like *.txt. 

They're still copyrighted work, so they should still have SPDX tags
to identify their license.

checkpatch has:

                                } elsif ($realfile =~ /\.rst$/) {
                                        $comment = '..';

so we're explicitly including rst files in the checking for now.

On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 13:22 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:

quoted

Checkpatch.pl should probably exclude *.rst files from the SPDX
License
Identifier check, since they are documentational files, like
*.txt. 

They're still copyrighted work, so they should still have SPDX tags
to identify their license.

checkpatch has:

                                } elsif ($realfile =~ /\.rst$/) {
                                        $comment = '..';

so we're explicitly including rst files in the checking for now.

Ah, sorry.  I did not catch that they started to include SPDX-License-
Identifiers for RST files, thanks Matthew.