On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:36:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:34 PM Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen > > > <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Thanks, very detailed! Does not make sense to ack these separately so I > > just say that I try to fix them all with care. > > Just comment on which you disagree. > I think one of them is the header file location. It seems I missed > it's current place. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
Ah, right, sorry forgot to comment it in LKML. There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add SPDX headers in the first place that was the example I was given. Still checkpatch.pl complains about C99-style comments. Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers when they do not pass checkpatch.pl? How those commits were ever accepted? /Jarkko
