| /openbmc/linux/tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/ |
| H A D | common_options.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-iter.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-link.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-struct_ops.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-btf.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-perf.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-feature.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-gen.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | Makefile | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-net.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-cgroup.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-map.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|
| H A D | bpftool-prog.rst | diff 4344842836e9b9a7b695dc84956cdecd83ac02e9 Mon Nov 15 16:58:42 CST 2021 Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> bpftool: Add SPDX tags to RST documentation files
Most files in the kernel repository have a SPDX tags. The files that
don't have such a tag (or another license boilerplate) tend to fall
under the GPL-2.0 license. In the past, bpftool's Makefile (for example)
has been marked as GPL-2.0 for that reason, when in fact all bpftool is
dual-licensed.
To prevent a similar confusion from happening with the RST documentation
files for bpftool, let's explicitly mark all files as dual-licensed.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-2-quentin@isovalent.com
|