[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ea0c656-bd7e-ae79-1f8e-6b60374ccc6e@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:37:20 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Cc: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Radim K <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM RISC-V Support
On 09/08/19 03:35, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> However, for Linux releases after 5.4 I would rather get pull requests
>> for arch/riscv/kvm from Anup and Atish without involving the RISC-V
>> tree. Of course, they or I will ask for your ack, or for a topic
>> branch, on the occasion that something touches files outside their
>> maintainership area. This is how things are already being handled for
>> ARM, POWER and s390 and it allows me to handle conflicts in common KVM
>> files before they reach Linus; these are more common than conflicts in
>> arch files. If you have further questions on git and maintenance
>> workflows, just ask!
>
> In principle, that's fine with me, as long as the arch/riscv maintainers
> and mailing lists are kept in the loop. We already do something similar
> to this for the RISC-V BPF JIT. However, I'd like this to be explicitly
> documented in the MAINTAINERS file, as it is for BPF. It looks like it
> isn't for ARM, POWER, or S390, either looking at MAINTAINERS or
> spot-checking scripts/get_maintainer.pl:
>
> $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
> Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
> linux-s390@...r.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
> $
>
> Would you be willing to send a MAINTAINERS patch to formalize this
> practice?
Ah, I see, in the MAINTAINERS entry
KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR RISC-V (KVM/riscv)
M: Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>
R: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
L: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
T: git git://github.com/avpatel/linux.git
S: Maintained
F: arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/kvm*
F: arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm*
F: arch/riscv/kvm/
the L here should be kvm@...r.kernel.org. arch/riscv/kvm/ files would
still match RISC-V ARCHITECTURE and therefore
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org would be CCed.
Unlike other subsystems, for KVM I ask the submaintainers to include the
patches in their pull requests, which is why you saw no kvm@...r entry
for KVM/s390. However, it's probably a good idea to add it and do the
same for RISC-V.
Is that what you meant?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists