Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: stmmac: thead: clean up clock rate setting

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Drew Fustini <drew@pdp7.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Fu Wei <wefu@redhat.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: stmmac: thead: clean up clock rate setting
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:09:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z7w3QhcYhrzQk_5K@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7bf9577f4b6dcb818785be73c175bcd19b3b4f0c.camel@perches.com>

On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 06:33:44AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-02-23 at 11:40 +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Adding Joe Perches.
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 02:15:17PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> []
> > I've been investigating why the NIPA bot complains about maintainers
> > not being Cc'd, such as for patch 1 of this series:
> > 
> > https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/static/nipa/936447/13985595/cc_maintainers/stdout
> 
> Additional maintainers added or missing?

Let me be clear - NIPA is not something under my control. It is a bot
run by Jakub on netdev patches that are received by patchwork - so
patches that have been emailed out, and thus contain at least the
To:, Cc: and Subject: header lines, possibly all header lines that
have been added such as Received: etc. I don't know what it actually
does.

Now let me restate the problem, because the answer to your question
is in the problem description. Here's the short version:

	K: entries match email headers.

Here's the long version:

If one runs get_maintainers.pl on a patch produced from git, it
comes out with a list of maintainers. In the case of dwmac-thead.c,
this includes an email address that contains "riscv".

If one adds this list of maintainers to email headers in the patch
prior to sending it out and then re-runs get_maintainers.pl on it,
or if one receives the patch after it having been emailed out, and
then runs get_maintainers.pl to validate that all appropriate
maintainers were sent a copy of the patch, then get_maintainers.pl
comes out with *extra* *additional* maintainers because the "K: riscv"
line matches *email* *headers*.

In this exact case of dwmac-thead.c, the first run prior to sending
out reports an email address containing "riscv". On these subsequent
runs with the maintainers added to email headers, the presence of
"K: riscv" in MAINTAINERS causes get_maintainers.pl to report the
three maintains for the "RISCV ARCHITECTURE" entry.

This is an issue for you as get_maintainers.pl maintainer and Jakub
as NIPA bot author to hash out - either get_maintainers.pl is
acting incorrectly and needs to be fixed, or NIPA is abusing
get_maintainers.pl in a way that it's not designed to be used.

I'm merely an observer of this behaviour and am merely reporting the
problem - that NIPA's cc_maintainers claim that maintainers were not
copied in my patch submission is incorrect and I've done the research
to identify _why_ it's incorrect. It's now up to you two to decide
where the problem lies and what the solution should be.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!