Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] uapi: hyperv: Add mshv driver headers defining hypervisor ABIs

[Wei Liu]

On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 08:19:27AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 10:01:58PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 08:09:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:01:39AM -0700, Nuno Das Neves wrote:
> > > > These must be in uapi because they will be used in the mshv ioctl API.
> > > > 
> > > > Version numbers for each file:
> > > > hvhdk.h		25212
> > > > hvhdk_mini.h	25294
> > > > hvgdk.h		25125
> > > > hvgdk_mini.h	25294
> > > 
> > > what are version numbers?
> > 
> > These are internal version numbers for the hypervisor headers. We keep
> > track of them so that we can detect if there are any breakages in the
> > ABI, and thus either ask them to be fixed or we come up with ways to
> > maintain compatibility. People outside of Microsoft don't need to worry
> > about this. If you don't think this information belongs in the commit
> > message, we can drop it.
> 
> Internal numbers to a single company that have no relevance to anyone
> else do not belong in a changelog comment.  Would you want to see this
> in any other kernel changelog message for any other portion of the
> kernel?
> 

Okay. They shall be removed. I agree with you.

> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h b/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..9bcbb7d902b2
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/hyperv/hvgdk.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> > > 
> > > That's usually not a good license for a new uapi .h file, why did you
> > > choose this one?
> > > 
> > 
> > This is chosen so that other Microsoft developers who don't normally
> > work on Linux can review this code.
> 
> Sorry, but that's not how kernel development is done.  Please fix your
> internal review processes and use the correct uapi header file license.
> 
> If your lawyers insist on this license, that's fine, but please have
> them provide a signed-off-by on the patch that adds it and have it
> documented why it is this license in the changelog AND in a comment in
> the file so we can understand what is going on with it.
> 

We went through an internal review with our legal counsel regarding the
MIT license. We have an approval from them.

Let me ask if using something like "GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note OR
MIT" is possible.

Thanks,
Wei.