linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add source tree entry for kunit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABVgOSkLDSneCiTqz7fD4sCJLJ_cnZkHUBSL2B67-HGc_Y6kmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:45:11 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add source tree entry for kunit

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 08:01, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 07:54:01 +0800 David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 02:05, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Patches for kunit are managed in linux-kselftest tree before merged into
> > > the mainline, but the MAINTAINERS section for kunit doesn't have the
> > > entry for the tree.  Add it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Thanks very much.
>
> My pleasure! :)
>
> >
> > Given KUnit work happens in the kunit and kunit-fixes branches here,
> > should we note those as well?
>
> That makes sense, I will add those in the commit message with the next version
> of this.
>
> >
> > -- David
> >
> >
> > >  MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > index ce5f343c1443..8a217438956b 100644
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > @@ -11327,6 +11327,7 @@ L:      linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
> > >  L:     kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
> > >  S:     Maintained
> > >  W:     https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/
> > > +T:     git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git
> >
> > Should we also mention the branch here:
> > git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git
> > kunit
>
> I think so.  Would you prefer having only one 'T' line with 'kunit' branch?
> Or, both branches like below?  I have no strong opinion.
>
> T:     git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git kunit
> T:     git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git kunit-fixes
>
>

Let's go with both, assuming no-one else objects.

Cheers,
-- David

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)