linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] MAINTAINERS: Add entries for Apple SoC cpufreq driver

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:   Thu, 5 May 2022 14:14:55 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] MAINTAINERS: Add entries for Apple SoC cpufreq
 driver

On 05-05-22, 10:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 16:52, Hector Martin wrote:
> > On 04/05/2022 19.17, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> This should be the last patch instead, or should at least be added
> >> after the files are merged first. If someone checks out at this
> >> commit, the files won't be available but still linked here.
> > 
> > Isn't that backwards? 
> 
> No, because we have tools for checking valid paths (in some places), so
> when using that tool, the history is not bisectable.
> 
> > If someone touches the files, we want them to be
> > able to get_maintainer.pl, so the MAINTAINERS entries should come first.
> > It doesn't really cause any issues if there are entries that point at
> > files that don't exist yet, right?
> 
> It hurts any current or future tools checking for valid paths.
> 
> > 
> > Though this is mostly a moot point because the purpose of splitting this
> > out is so we can merge this one patch through the SoC tree, at which
> > point the ordering isn't guaranteed (unless the whole series goes
> > through SoC). 
> 
> Just add each path change to respective commit adding that file. It
> should not be a separate commit, at first place.
> 
> Separate commits are for adding entire Maintainers entry.

And there is no need for this patch to go via SoC tree, we can handle
minor conflicts later on if required.

-- 
viresh