linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: Convert to using %pOFn instead of device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a838a627dd3308908c54f8d84d7fa9c56953b954.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:41:47 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ian Arkver <ian.arkver.dev@...il.com>,
        Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: Convert to using %pOFn instead of
 device_node.name

On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:26 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 15:26 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > A problem with MAINTAINERS is there is no way to tell who applies
> > > patches for a given path vs. anyone else listed.
> > 
> > try the --scm option
> 
> That kind of helps if the maintainer has listed a tree, but gives
> wrong results if not.

If there isn't a tree listed, it's not really maintained.

> And you still have to figure out who owns which
> tree. That's not hard, but it's not scriptable.

a get_maintainer scripted loop using
  --maxdepth=<incrementing_from_1> --scm --m --nor --nol
until a result could work.

> IMO, we should reserve 'M:' for maintainers with trees and use 'R:'
> driver maintainers. That's redefining M as "maintainer" rather than
> "mail patches to". You could still have both for a entry so you can
> know who to go bug when your patch hasn't been applied.

IMO, most M: entries in MAINTAINERS are either reviewers or
used-once when created and longer active or just vanity.