netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] MAINTAINERS: add a sample ethtool section entry

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]

Message-ID: <20250203105647.GG234677@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:56:47 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] MAINTAINERS: add a sample ethtool section entry

On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 06:11:55PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> I feel like we don't do a good enough keeping authors of driver
> APIs around. The ethtool code base was very nicely compartmentalized
> by Michal. Establish a precedent of creating MAINTAINERS entries
> for "sections" of the ethtool API. Use Andrew and cable test as
> a sample entry. The entry should ideally cover 3 elements:
> a core file, test(s), and keywords. The last one is important
> because we intend the entries to cover core code *and* reviews
> of drivers implementing given API!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
> This patch is a nop from process perspective, since Andrew already
> is a maintainer and reviews all this code. Let's focus on discussing
> merits of the "section entries" in abstract?

In the first instance this seems like a good direction to go in to me.
My only slight concern is that we might see an explosion in entries.
Do we think so? Do we mind if that happens?