| /openbmc/linux/fs/ext4/ |
| H A D | fsmap.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | fsmap.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | truncate.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | hash.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | acl.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ext4_extents.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | extents_status.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | mballoc.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ext4_jbd2.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | xattr.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | move_extent.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | inline.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | mballoc.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | extents.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | migrate.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ext4.h | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | super.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/jbd2/ |
| H A D | revoke.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | recovery.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | checkpoint.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | commit.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | transaction.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | journal.c | f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
f5166768 Sun Dec 17 21:00:59 CST 2017 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: fix up remaining files with SPDX cleanups
A number of ext4 source files were skipped due because their copyright
permission statements didn't match the expected text used by the
automated conversion utilities. I've added SPDX tags for the rest.
While looking at some of these files, I've noticed that we have quite
a bit of variation on the licenses that were used --- in particular
some of the Red Hat licenses on the jbd2 files use a GPL2+ license,
and we have some files that have a LGPL-2.1 license (which was quite
surprising).
I've not attempted to do any license changes. Even if it is perfectly
legal to relicense to GPL 2.0-only for consistency's sake, that should
be done with ext4 developer community discussion.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|