[dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format

[Hemant Agrawal]

> 18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden:
> > > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and
> > > > >> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself.
> > > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive.
> > > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style?
> > > > >
> > > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto
> > > > style rather than go your own way.
> > >
> > > But our way is better! :)
> > > And it has been decided in the Technical Board.
> > >
> >
> > As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own
> > checkpatch-like script for performing addition DPDK-specific
> > code-checks *after* Linux checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check
> > patch checks as much as possible, but have other checks too.
> 
> +1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh.
> We need to find the right language to do code checks.
> Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks.
> 
> > For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with
> > "%s") and suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own
> > extension script, we could put our own SPDX format check there too.
> >
> > Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this?
> 
> I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute later.
> 
> Any motivated volunteer?
> 
[Hemant] yes, we need volunteer 😊 

In DPDK we have following requirements
1. Check the SPDX tag on the files.
2. Validate the valid license SPDX tag. (BSD-3 and Dual for all except kernel folder). 

Regards,
Hemant