Re: Report on MAINTAINERS coverage

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:

> On 18/12/2025 16.25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 18/12/2025 14.49, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 02:37:43PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>>>> Which unmaintained files are we still changing?  Unmaintained files
>>>>>>> sorted by number of commits in the past year (since v9.2.0):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       $ for i in `cat unmaintained-files`; do echo -n "$i "; git-rev-list v9.2.0.. $i | wc -l; done | awk '{ printf "%7d %s\n", $2, $1 }' | sort -rn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       107 tests/functional/meson.build
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opps, that's a mistake. It should of course be under the
>>>>>> general maint heading "Functional testing framework"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!  I can patch that.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the other uncovered files in tests/functional/?
>>>>
>>>>> tests/functional/aarch64/meson.build
>>>>
>>>> [snip many more]
>>>>
>>>> I'd wildcard   tests/functional/*/meson.build under the
>>>> general maint.
>>>
>>> Either that, or make sure the the architecture maintainers own the whole
>>> tests/functional/<arch> folders.
>> 
>> The former is easy.  Regarding the latter...
>> 
>> The MAINTAINERS section we use to cover an architecture is often less
>> than obvious.
>> 
>> meson.build under tests/functional/ covered so far:
>> 
>>      tests/functional/alpha/meson.build      Alpha TCG CPUs
>>      tests/functional/avr/meson.build        AVR TCG CPUs
>>      tests/functional/hppa/meson.build       HP B160L, HP C3700
>>      tests/functional/i386/meson.build       X86 general architecture support
>>      tests/functional/riscv32/meson.build    RISC-V TCG CPUs
>>      tests/functional/riscv64/meson.build    RISC-V TCG CPUs
>>      tests/functional/s390x/meson.build      S390 Virtio-ccw
>>      tests/functional/x86_64/meson.build     X86 general architecture support
>> 
>> We have "$ARCH general architecture support" (obvious enough), "$ARCH
>> TCG CPUs" (meh), and even machine sections that happen to be the only
>> one of this architecture in MAINTAINERS (meh^2).
>
> Yes, it's ugly, but that's basically what we currently have in MAINTAINERS, 
> I think.
>
>> Thomas, should tests/functional/s390x/meson.build move to "S390 general
>> architecture support"?
>
> It doesn't matter much since there is currently only one single machine for 
> s390x, and that's this S390 virtio-ccw machine.

Different maintainers, though.  

I'll leave it alone.

>> Not covered:
>> 
>>      tests/functional/aarch64/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/arm/meson.build
>> 
>>          There is no ARM general architecture support section.  Add these
>>          to ARM TCG CPUs?
>
> That's the best solution, I think.
>
>>      tests/functional/generic/meson.build
>> 
>>          Functional testing framework?
>
> Yes, please.
>
>>      tests/functional/loongarch64/meson.build
>> 
>>          LoongArch TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/m68k/meson.build
>> 
>>          M68K TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/meson.build
>> 
>>          Functional testing framework, as discussed above.
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/microblaze/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/microblazeel/meson.build
>> 
>>          MicroBlaze TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/mips/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/mips64/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/mips64el/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/mipsel/meson.build
>> 
>>          We have MIPS general architecture support.  I guess we can add
>>          them there.
>
> Sounds right.
>
>>      tests/functional/or1k/meson.build
>> 
>>          OpenRISC TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/ppc/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/ppc64/meson.build
>> 
>>          PowerPC TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/rx/meson.build
>> 
>>          RENESAS RX CPUs?
>
> Yes, though it's orphan, so it won't help much.
>
>>      tests/functional/sh4/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/sh4eb/meson.build
>> 
>>          SH4 TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/sparc/meson.build
>>      tests/functional/sparc64/meson.build
>> 
>>          SPARC TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>      tests/functional/xtensa/meson.build
>> 
>>          Xtensa TCG CPUs?
>
> Yes.

I'll post a patch for these.

>>>>> tests/functional/arm/test_max78000fthr.py
>>>>
>>>> Added by Thomas but not sure what maintainers category it should go
>>>> under.
>>>
>>> No, I just moved the file around. This belongs to the "max78000fthr" arm
>>> machine - we need a complete new entry in MAINTAINERS for that one if I get
>>> this right.
>> 
>> Which files?  My best guess based on git history:
>> 
>>      docs/system/arm/max78000.rst
>>      hw/misc/max78000_aes.c
>>      hw/misc/max78000_gcr.c
>>      hw/misc/max78000_icc.c
>>      hw/misc/max78000_trng.c
>>      include/hw/arm/max78000_soc.h
>>      include/hw/misc/max78000_aes.h
>>      include/hw/misc/max78000_gcr.h
>>      include/hw/misc/max78000_icc.h
>>      include/hw/misc/max78000_trng.h
>>      tests/functional/arm/test_max78000fthr.py
>
> You missed:
>
>      hw/arm/max78000fthr.c
>      hw/arm/max78000_soc.c

No idea how I missed them, git-log shows them.

> Maybe simply use hw/*/max78000* and include/hw/*/max78000* to cover most of 
> the files?

Yup.

I asked the author whether he's willing to serve as maintainer.