Fixes: 81f559e97974 ("make error codes a formal part of the ABI")
Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
---
 xen/include/public/errno.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
index 5c53af6af9..6bdc8c5079 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
+
 /*
  * There are two expected ways of including this header.
  *
-- 
Anthony PERARD

On 02.11.2022 12:28, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> Fixes: 81f559e97974 ("make error codes a formal part of the ABI")
> Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
> ---
>  xen/include/public/errno.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> index 5c53af6af9..6bdc8c5079 100644
> --- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> +
>  /*
>   * There are two expected ways of including this header.
>   *

Doesn't this require at least part of Stefano's "[PATCH v4 0/4] introduce
SPDX" as a prereq? I notice quite a few files already use leading SPDX
comments, but perhaps wrongly so without it being explained anywhere in
tree what this is about?

Jan

On 02/11/2022 12:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.11.2022 12:28, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>> Fixes: 81f559e97974 ("make error codes a formal part of the ABI")
>> Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>> ---
>>  xen/include/public/errno.h | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
>> index 5c53af6af9..6bdc8c5079 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
>> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * There are two expected ways of including this header.
>>   *
> Doesn't this require at least part of Stefano's "[PATCH v4 0/4] introduce
> SPDX" as a prereq?

No.

A retroactive commentary on SPDX tags doesn't change the validity of the
tags themselves, nor the fact they've been a specifically agreed thing
for years now (considering it was Lars who settled the SPDX debate with
an explicit yes).

~Andrew

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 01:58:11PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.11.2022 12:28, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > Fixes: 81f559e97974 ("make error codes a formal part of the ABI")
> > Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
> > ---
> >  xen/include/public/errno.h | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > index 5c53af6af9..6bdc8c5079 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
> > @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * There are two expected ways of including this header.
> >   *
> 
> Doesn't this require at least part of Stefano's "[PATCH v4 0/4] introduce
> SPDX" as a prereq? I notice quite a few files already use leading SPDX
> comments, but perhaps wrongly so without it being explained anywhere in
> tree what this is about?

I don't think Stefano's work is required or needed, beside pointing out
that new file should use SPDX, and providing guidelines.

It seems that using the SPDX identifier in a project without explanation
is enough. It could be seen as a useless comment if not understood (but
useful for some tools) and in this case the COPYING files (in our case)
would tell the licence been used.

But, if used, "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" have a very specific
meaning, it means that the licence used in question is
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html, and Stefano's work shouldn't change
that meaning.

Thanks,

-- 
Anthony PERARD