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

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

[Jason Andryuk]

Split out AMD SVM and AMD IOMMU, and add myself as a reviewer.  Jan,
Andrew and Roger are set as maintainers as they were for the X86 entry.

Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 793561f63f..0139edd88b 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -220,6 +220,23 @@ F:	xen/drivers/acpi/
 F:	xen/include/acpi/
 F:	tools/libacpi/
 
+AMD SVM
+M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
+M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
+M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
+R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
+S:	Supported
+F:	xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
+F:	xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
+
+AMD IOMMU
+M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
+M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
+M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
+R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
+S:	Supported
+F:	xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/
+
 ARGO
 M:	Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@gmail.com>
 R:	Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
@@ -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
 F:	xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/
 F:	xen/include/public/arch-x86/
 F:	xen/include/xen/lib/x86/
-- 
2.51.0

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

[Roger Pau Monné]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 07:42:38PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> Split out AMD SVM and AMD IOMMU, and add myself as a reviewer.  Jan,
> Andrew and Roger are set as maintainers as they were for the X86 entry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>

Thanks for adding yourself!

I have on question below about the mechanics of MAINTAINERS parsing
(but no objection at all with you becoming a reviewer).

> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 793561f63f..0139edd88b 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -220,6 +220,23 @@ F:	xen/drivers/acpi/
>  F:	xen/include/acpi/
>  F:	tools/libacpi/
>  
> +AMD SVM
> +M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> +M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> +M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> +R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
> +S:	Supported
> +F:	xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
> +F:	xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
> +
> +AMD IOMMU
> +M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> +M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> +M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> +R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
> +S:	Supported
> +F:	xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/
> +
>  ARGO
>  M:	Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@gmail.com>
>  R:	Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
> @@ -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?

Thanks, Roger.

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

[Anthony PERARD]

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.

Cheers,

-- 
Anthony PERARD

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

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.10.2025 01:42, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -220,6 +220,23 @@ F:	xen/drivers/acpi/
>  F:	xen/include/acpi/
>  F:	tools/libacpi/
>  
> +AMD SVM
> +M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> +M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> +M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> +R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
> +S:	Supported
> +F:	xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
> +F:	xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
> +
> +AMD IOMMU
> +M:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> +M:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> +M:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> +R:	Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
> +S:	Supported
> +F:	xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/

Nit: These are the wrong way round, violating alphabetical sorting.

Jan

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

[Jason Andryuk]

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.

Regards,
Jason

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

[Roger Pau Monné]

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.