Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] qapi: Create module 'control'

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 29.01.2020 um 10:41 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Am 29.01.2020 um 09:35 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> >> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 
> >> > misc.json contains definitions that are related to the system emulator,
> >> > so it can't be used for other tools like the storage daemon. This patch
> >> > moves basic functionality that is shared between all tools (and mostly
> >> > related to the monitor itself) into a new control.json, which could be
> >> > used in tools as well.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> >> > ---
> >> >  qapi/control.json          | 218 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  qapi/misc.json             | 212 ------------------------------------
> >> >  qapi/qapi-schema.json      |   1 +
> >> >  monitor/monitor-internal.h |   1 +
> >> >  monitor/hmp-cmds.c         |   1 +
> >> >  monitor/misc.c             |   1 +
> >> >  monitor/qmp-cmds.c         |   1 +
> >> >  monitor/qmp.c              |   2 +-
> >> >  tests/qtest/qmp-test.c     |   2 +-
> >> >  ui/gtk.c                   |   1 +
> >> >  qapi/Makefile.objs         |   6 +-
> >> >  11 files changed, 229 insertions(+), 217 deletions(-)
> >> >  create mode 100644 qapi/control.json
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/qapi/control.json b/qapi/control.json
> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> > index 0000000000..a82a18da1a
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/qapi/control.json
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
> >> > +# -*- Mode: Python -*-
> >> > +#
> >> > +
> >> 
> >> Let's add a copyright notice:
> >> 
> >>    # Copyright (C) 2011-2020 Red Hat, Inc.
> >>    #
> >>    # This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or 
> >> later.
> >>    # See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> >
> > I'm not adding anything new, but just moving code from a file that
> > doesn't have a copyright notice. In fact, almost none of the schema
> > files have a copyright notice. I'm not comfortable adding legal
> > assertions without verifying that they are correct, and certainly not as
> > a side-effect of a code movement patch. This would be an unrelated
> > change.
> >
> > I suggest that we leave this patch as is, and if you think copyright
> > notices should be added, the correct information can be tracked down
> > and added consistently for all schema files in a separate series.
> 
> There is nothing to be tracked down.  Anything that lacks an explicit
> copyright notice is under GPLv2+, as per LICENSE.

The copyright holders should be tracked down rather than just putting
"Red Hat" there, which is most likely wrong. Not that copyright notices
anywhere else are much more complete, but they tend to be correct at
least when they are added (i.e. usually when the file is created), so
not updating them is the fault of the copyright holders that are
missing in the notice.

But anyway, it's unrelated to this patch in either case.

Kevin