linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs: Programmatically render MAINTAINERS into ReST

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 11:36:29 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs: Programmatically render MAINTAINERS into ReST

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:27:29 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 08:31:47AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On a separate note...it occurred to me, rather belatedly as usual, that
> > last time we discussed doing this that there was some opposition to adding
> > a second MAINTAINERS parser to the kernel; future changes to the format of
> > that file may force both to be adjusted, and somebody will invariably
> > forget one.  Addressing that, if we feel a need to do so, probably requires
> > tweaking get_maintainer.pl to output the information in a useful format.  
> 
> That's a reasonable point, but I would make two observations:
> 
> - get_maintainers.pl is written in Perl and I really don't want to write
>   more Perl. ;)

Trust me, I get it!

> - the parsing methods in get_maintainers is much more focused on the
>   file/pattern matching and is blind to the structure of the rest
>   of the document (it only examines '^[A-Z]:' and blank lines), and
>   does so "on demand", in that it hunts through the entire MAINTAINERS
>   file contents for each path match.
> 
> So I don't think it's suitable to merge functionality here...

Makes sense to me.  If anybody out there objects, speak now ...

jon