linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: MAINTAINERS: add status for IRQ helpers

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, 21 Dec 2023 09:02:40 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: MAINTAINERS: add status for IRQ helpers

On 21/12/2023 07:17, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 12/18/23 12:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Each maintainer entry should have a status field:
>>
>>    $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --self-test=sections
>>    ./MAINTAINERS:23368: warning: section without status
>>
>> Fixes: d55444adedae ("MAINTAINERS: Add reviewer for regulator irq_helpers")
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>   MAINTAINERS | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 30322190a72f..6fd22db830f5 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -23367,6 +23367,7 @@ K:	regulator_get_optional
>>   
>>   VOLTAGE AND CURRENT REGULATOR IRQ HELPERS
>>   R:	Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>> +S:	Maintained
> 
> Isn't that a bit odd seeing the M: - entry is missing as well?
> 
> This entry falls under the drivers/regulator, and as such, is maintained 
> by Mark (and the "umbrella" entry VOLTAGE AND CURRENT REGULATOR 
> FRAMEWORK has all needed bits and pieces, like the M: and S:).
> 
> I think the current MAINTAINERS entries reflect the reality. Mark (and 
> Liam) are THE regulator guy(s). I am just doing bits and pieces here and 
> there, like reviewing the changes to these helpers.

And your piece needs S: to explain whether you do odd fixes, maintaining
or supporting. Although I understand questioning this with only R:, but
I would argue that it still applies - reviewing odd fixes, reviewing
unpaid or paid.

> 
> I guess that from a technical POV duplicating the S: and M: here is a 
> bit pointless, and as all duplicates, adds overhead when changes are done.

M: is optional, anyway the M: field from regulators count, but status
can be different than from the parent.

> I am happy with the existing entries, but seems like everyone else is 
> not. Still, having S: without M: can be a source of confusion. If S: is 
> required, maybe add Mark as M: here as well. (Or if this is not Ok with 
> Mark, switch my R to M - which in my opinion is still a bit pointless as 
> the changes to drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c will flow through Mark's 
> hands in any case :] )
> 
Best regards,
Krzysztof