Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as an AMD SVM & IOMMU reviewer

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 07:49:37PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-10-03 05:20, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 10:09:31AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 07:42:38PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > > @@ -601,7 +618,8 @@ M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> > > >   S:	Supported
> > > >   L:	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> > > >   F:	xen/arch/x86/
> > > > -F:	xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/
> > > > +X:	xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
> > > > +X:	xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible to not exclude the SVM related code here, and
> > > avoid having to duplicate the x86 maintainers on the AMD entries?
> > > 
> > > Or the parsing of the file doesn't deal with multiple entries possibly
> > > covering the same files?
> > 
> > ./get_maintainer.pl can deal with a file been covered by multiple
> > entries, there's multiple example of that already, (e.g. many subsection
> > are also covered by TOOLSTACK).
> > 
> > The exclusion is likely unnecessary, and ./get_maintainer.pl will just
> > get the information (email, ...) from every sections that a file match.
> > But the duplication is necessary due to the "The meaning of nesting"
> > described in the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> Roger, are you okay with this approach?
> 
> I considered adding myself to the top level X86 entry but it covers so much.
> I mainly care about one cpu vendor ;) and I'm not interested in PV or
> shadow.  So I went with adding myself to the specific subset.

Indeed.  Jan reported a sorting issue, you can add my:

Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>

To the correctly sorted patch.

Thanks, Roger.