On 05/03/2017 11:05 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com > <mailto:jbeul...@suse.com>> wrote: > > >>> On 03.05.17 at 12:37, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com > <mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote: > > On 05/03/17 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 03.05.17 at 11:10, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com > <mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote: > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ > >>> +/* > >>> + * arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c > >>> + * > >>> + * HVM vm_event handling routines > >>> + * > >>> + * Copyright (c) 2017 Razvan Cojocaru (rcojoc...@bitdefender.com > <mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>) > >> > >> I'm notoriously bad when it comes to copyrights, but you just > >> moving code makes me wonder whether this is appropriate. > > > > To be honest I quite agree with you, and in the beginning I just meant > > to have no Copyright line in there at all - but I remembered a > > discussion a while back where a patch was I believe rejected because it > > lacked one. So I've just copied Tamas' file (vm_event.c) and only > > changed the copyright line because I didn't really know what else to put > > there. > > > > I'm quite happy to remove it altogether. Will that do? > > Afaic - sure. But as said, I'm quite bad at such things ... > > > Since this is just code-movement from hvm.c to a separate file I would > say it should retain the copyright lines from hvm.c. Other then that it > looks good to me.
Actually the funny part about that is that while this is indeed only moved code, I have written all of that code in the first place, so I've moved my own code. :) But I have no problem with either removing the copyright line altogether or using the lines in hvm.c as suggested. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
