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: <20250204073759.536531d3@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 07:37:59 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] MAINTAINERS: add a sample ethtool section entry

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:26:40 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 2/2/25 3:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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?  
> 
> Should the keyword be a little more generic, i.e. just 'cable_test'?
> AFAICS the current one doesn't catch the device drivers,
> 
> I agree encouraging more driver API reviewer would be great, but I
> personally have a slight preference to add/maintain entries only they
> actually affect the process.

You're right, I was going after the op name. Seems like a good default
keyword. But it appears that there are two layers of ops, one called
start_cable_test and the next cable_test_start, so this isn't catching
actual drivers.

> What about tying the creation of the entry to some specific contribution?

Sure. I'm adding this so that we have a commit to point people at 
as an example when they contribute what should be a new section.
Maybe I don't understand the question..