Message ID | 20230302093539.372962-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi | expand |
Hi Alex, On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:35 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: > This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the > RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the > maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on > that to be correct. > > Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but > PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure > what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel > boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), > and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic/setup.h."). > > It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been > part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle > /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any > references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google > search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. > > This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same > conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > configurable"). > > The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really > shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've > tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't > tested it all that aggressively. > > Changes since v3 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: > * Added RB/AB > * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > configurable") in the cover letter Thanks for the update! Apparently you forgot to add your own SoB? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
Hi Arnd, On 3/2/23 10:35, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the > RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the > maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on > that to be correct. > > Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but > PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure > what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel > boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), > and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic/setup.h."). > > It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been > part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle > /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any > references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google > search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. > > This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same > conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > configurable"). > > The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really > shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've > tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't > tested it all that aggressively. > > Changes since v3 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: > * Added RB/AB > * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > configurable") in the cover letter > > Changes since v2 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221211061358.28035-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/>: > * Fix sh, csky and ia64 builds, as reported by kernel test robot > > Changes since v1 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210423025545.313965-1-palmer@dabbelt.com/>: > * Touches every arch. > > base-commit-tag: next-20230207 > > Palmer Dabbelt (24): > alpha: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > arm64: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > arm: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > ia64: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > m68k: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > microblaze: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > mips: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > parisc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > powerpc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > sparc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > xtensa: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > asm-generic: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi > alpha: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > arc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > m68k: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > arm64: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > microblaze: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > sparc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > parisc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > x86: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > xtensa: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > powerpc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > mips: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > s390: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> > > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst | 2 +- > arch/alpha/include/asm/setup.h | 4 +-- > arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 7 ----- > arch/arc/include/asm/setup.h | 1 - > arch/arc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 6 ----- > arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h | 1 + > arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 2 -- > arch/arm64/include/asm/setup.h | 3 ++- > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 27 ------------------- > arch/ia64/include/asm/setup.h | 10 +++++++ > arch/ia64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 6 ++--- > arch/loongarch/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- > arch/m68k/include/asm/setup.h | 3 +-- > arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 17 ------------ > arch/microblaze/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- > arch/microblaze/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 20 -------------- > arch/mips/include/asm/setup.h | 3 ++- > arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 8 ------ > arch/parisc/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h | 0 > arch/powerpc/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 7 ----- > arch/s390/include/asm/setup.h | 1 - > arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 1 - > arch/sh/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- > arch/sparc/include/asm/setup.h | 6 ++++- > arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 16 ----------- > arch/x86/include/asm/setup.h | 2 -- > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 1 - > arch/xtensa/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h | 0 > include/asm-generic/Kbuild | 1 + > include/{uapi => }/asm-generic/setup.h | 0 > include/uapi/asm-generic/Kbuild | 1 - > 32 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/arc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > create mode 100644 arch/ia64/include/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/microblaze/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > rename arch/parisc/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h (100%) > delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/setup.h > rename arch/xtensa/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h (100%) > rename include/{uapi => }/asm-generic/setup.h (100%) > Björn noticed that I should also remove the command line size for riscv since it was picked up in 6.3 by Palmer...I send a v6 right now, sorry about that. Alex
Hi Geert, On 3/2/23 10:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:35 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: >> This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the >> RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the >> maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on >> that to be correct. >> >> Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but >> PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >> to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >> increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure >> what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >> asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel >> boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), >> and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >> asm-generic/setup.h."). >> >> It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been >> part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle >> /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any >> references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google >> search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. >> >> This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same >> conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >> configurable"). >> >> The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really >> shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've >> tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't >> tested it all that aggressively. >> >> Changes since v3 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: >> * Added RB/AB >> * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >> configurable") in the cover letter > Thanks for the update! > > Apparently you forgot to add your own SoB? I do not know, should I? Palmer did all the work, I only fixed 3 minor things > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds
Hi Alex, On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 11:09 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr> wrote: > On 3/2/23 10:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:35 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: > >> This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the > >> RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the > >> maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on > >> that to be correct. > >> > >> Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but > >> PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > >> to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > >> increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure > >> what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > >> asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel > >> boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), > >> and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > >> asm-generic/setup.h."). > >> > >> It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been > >> part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle > >> /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any > >> references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google > >> search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. > >> > >> This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same > >> conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > >> configurable"). > >> > >> The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really > >> shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've > >> tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't > >> tested it all that aggressively. > >> > >> Changes since v3 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: > >> * Added RB/AB > >> * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > >> configurable") in the cover letter > > Thanks for the update! > > > > Apparently you forgot to add your own SoB? > > I do not know, should I? Palmer did all the work, I only fixed 3 minor > things If you are picking up patches, and submitting them to someone else for upstream inclusion, you should add your own SoB. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L419 Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On 3/2/23 11:44, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 11:09 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr> wrote: >> On 3/2/23 10:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:35 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: >>>> This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the >>>> RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the >>>> maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on >>>> that to be correct. >>>> >>>> Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but >>>> PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >>>> to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >>>> increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure >>>> what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >>>> asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel >>>> boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), >>>> and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >>>> asm-generic/setup.h."). >>>> >>>> It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been >>>> part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle >>>> /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any >>>> references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google >>>> search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. >>>> >>>> This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same >>>> conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >>>> configurable"). >>>> >>>> The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really >>>> shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've >>>> tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't >>>> tested it all that aggressively. >>>> >>>> Changes since v3 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: >>>> * Added RB/AB >>>> * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >>>> configurable") in the cover letter >>> Thanks for the update! >>> >>> Apparently you forgot to add your own SoB? >> I do not know, should I? Palmer did all the work, I only fixed 3 minor >> things > If you are picking up patches, and submitting them to someone else > for upstream inclusion, you should add your own SoB. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L419 Great, thanks for the pointer, I'll do that then! Thanks again, Alex > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert >
On 3/2/23 11:06, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On 3/2/23 10:35, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: >> This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the >> RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the >> maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on >> that to be correct. >> >> Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but >> PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >> to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE >> increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure >> what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >> asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel >> boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), >> and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from >> asm-generic/setup.h."). >> >> It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been >> part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle >> /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any >> references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google >> search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. >> >> This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same >> conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >> configurable"). >> >> The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really >> shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've >> tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't >> tested it all that aggressively. >> >> Changes since v3 >> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230214074925.228106-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/>: >> * Added RB/AB >> * Added a mention to commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line >> configurable") in the cover letter >> >> Changes since v2 >> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221211061358.28035-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/>: >> * Fix sh, csky and ia64 builds, as reported by kernel test robot >> >> Changes since v1 >> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210423025545.313965-1-palmer@dabbelt.com/>: >> * Touches every arch. >> >> base-commit-tag: next-20230207 >> >> Palmer Dabbelt (24): >> alpha: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> arm64: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> arm: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> ia64: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> m68k: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> microblaze: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> mips: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> parisc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> powerpc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> sparc: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> xtensa: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> asm-generic: Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi >> alpha: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> arc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> m68k: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> arm64: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> microblaze: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> sparc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> parisc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> x86: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> xtensa: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> powerpc: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> mips: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> s390: Remove empty <uapi/asm/setup.h> >> >> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst | 2 +- >> arch/alpha/include/asm/setup.h | 4 +-- >> arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 7 ----- >> arch/arc/include/asm/setup.h | 1 - >> arch/arc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 6 ----- >> arch/arm/include/asm/setup.h | 1 + >> arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 2 -- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/setup.h | 3 ++- >> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 27 ------------------- >> arch/ia64/include/asm/setup.h | 10 +++++++ >> arch/ia64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 6 ++--- >> arch/loongarch/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- >> arch/m68k/include/asm/setup.h | 3 +-- >> arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 17 ------------ >> arch/microblaze/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- >> arch/microblaze/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 20 -------------- >> arch/mips/include/asm/setup.h | 3 ++- >> arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 8 ------ >> arch/parisc/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h | 0 >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- >> arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 7 ----- >> arch/s390/include/asm/setup.h | 1 - >> arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 1 - >> arch/sh/include/asm/setup.h | 2 +- >> arch/sparc/include/asm/setup.h | 6 ++++- >> arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 16 ----------- >> arch/x86/include/asm/setup.h | 2 -- >> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/setup.h | 1 - >> arch/xtensa/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h | 0 >> include/asm-generic/Kbuild | 1 + >> include/{uapi => }/asm-generic/setup.h | 0 >> include/uapi/asm-generic/Kbuild | 1 - >> 32 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/arc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> create mode 100644 arch/ia64/include/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/microblaze/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> rename arch/parisc/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h (100%) >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/setup.h >> rename arch/xtensa/include/{uapi => }/asm/setup.h (100%) >> rename include/{uapi => }/asm-generic/setup.h (100%) >> > Björn noticed that I should also remove the command line size for > riscv since it was picked up in 6.3 by Palmer...I send a v6 right now, > sorry about that. > > Alex > Hmmm when implementing the riscv patch, I noticed that the patches that introduce a new include/asm/setup.h file add the following SPDX header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ To me we should not add "WITH Linux-syscall-note" as this header is not part of the user visible headers: any opinion before I send the v5? Thanks, Alex