linux-kernel - Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

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: <80146d5713f8579a92b4da1e2b7d7626999dd9be.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 09:23:45 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 08:38 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.05.20 07:21, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon 
> > co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 
> > MAINTAINERS complains:
> > 
> > WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
> > #17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982:
> > +F:	include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h
> > +F:	include/linux/balloon_compaction.h
> > 
> > This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you 
> > would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.
> > 
> > It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in 
> > MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.
> 
> Thanks for the notification Lukas,
> 
> b962ee8622d0 ("checkpatch: additional MAINTAINER section entry ordering
> checks") is not in Linus' tree yet AFAIKS.
> 
> I can see that 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all
> entries") is upstream. I do wonder if we should just do another batch
> update after the checkpatch patch is upstream instead, I guess more will
> pile up?
> 
> @mst, joe, what do you prefer?
> 
> 1. I can resend the original patch.
> 2. Lukas can send a fixup that we might want to squash.
> 3. We wait until the checkpatch change goes upstream and to a final
> batch update.

A fixup patch would work.

I think if Linus every once in awhile just before an -rc1 runs
scripts/parse-maintainers like:

commit 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all entries")

then these sorts of individual patches would not matter much.

This first time the script was run, I think there was just 1 patch
conflict from -next to Linus' tree, and that scripted change was
fairly large.

As the changes will generally be smaller in the future, it's unlikely
there will be a significant number of conflicts.