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: <20250204093945.GM234677@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 09:39:45 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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 Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:29:23PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:56:47AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't think that will happen. I don't think we really have many
> sections of ethtool which people personally care about, always try to
> review across all drivers.
> 
> Even if it does explode, so what. Is ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl the
> bottleneck in any workflows?

Thanks Andrew,

I'm not overly concerned by the points I raised either, but I did think
they were worth raising.  And given that doing so didn't raise any alarm
bells (so far), I'm happy for this patch to proceed.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>