[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023092709-diminish-antelope-a803@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:21:02 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
mario.limonciello@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] get_maintainer: add patch-only pattern matching type
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 03:46:30PM +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 03:19:16AM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > Note that folks really shouldn't be using get_maintainer on tree files
> > > anyways [1].
> >
> > That's not true, Linus and I use it on a daily basis this way, it's part
> > of our normal workflow, AND the workflow of the kernel security team.
> >
> > So please don't take that valid use-case away from us.
>
> Fair. I'm on the side of keeping the "K:'' behavior the way it is and
> that's why I'm proposing adding "D:" to provide a more granular
> content matching type operating strictly on patches. It's purely
> opt-in.
>
> The patch I linked mentioned steering folks away from using
> tree files but not necessarily removing the behavior.
Please don't steer folks away from it, it is a valid use case of the
tool, and I would argue, one of the most important ones given how often
I use it that way.
Hence my objection to this verbage in the changelog, it's not correct.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists