[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200805220215.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 23:02:16 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update phylink/sfp keyword matching
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:54:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 19:22 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:34 AM Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Is this something you're willing to merge directly please?
> > >
> > > Done.
> > >
> > > That said:
> > >
> > > > -K: phylink
> > > > +K: phylink\.h|struct\s+phylink|\.phylink|>phylink_|phylink_(autoneg|clear|connect|create|destroy|disconnect|ethtool|helper|mac|mii|of|set|start|stop|test|validate)
> > >
> > > That's a very awkward pattern. I wonder if there could be better ways
> > > to express this (ie "only apply this pattern to these files" kind of
> > > thing)
> >
> > Yes, it's extremely awkward - I spent much of the morning with perl
> > testing it out on the drivers/ subtree.
>
> And perhaps easier to read would be to use multiple K: lines.
> (?: used to avoid unnecessary capture groups)
>
> K: phylink\.h|struct\s+phylink
> K: (?:\.|\-\>)phylink_
That one is definitely incorrect. It is not .phylink_ or ->phylink_,
it was .phylink (without _) or >phylink_
> K: phylink_(?:autoneg|clear|connect|create|destroy|disconnect|ethtool|helper|mac|mii|of|set|start|stop|test|validate)
>
>
>
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists