From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jack Stone Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:45:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 54/56] x86: Remove void casts Message-Id: <49DD0D02.3030604@fastmail.fm> List-Id: References: <36ca99e90904080518qf81b483h6ed2bc9752ee0d1e@mail.gmail.com> <49DCAE97.8040602@fastmail.fm> <20090408140637.GC12931@elte.hu> <49DCB140.7000603@fastmail.fm> <20090408144055.GH12931@elte.hu> <49DCB8C5.4090108@fastmail.fm> <20090408144842.GK12931@elte.hu> <49DCBA61.8060507@fastmail.fm> <20090408145715.GO12931@elte.hu> <49DCBBDF.4040603@fastmail.fm> <20090408151644.GQ12931@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090408151644.GQ12931@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Bert Wesarg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > In theory we could put regex patterns into MAINTAINERS. Something > like this: > > LOCKDEP AND LOCKSTAT > P: Peter Zijlstra > M: peterz@infradead.org > P: Ingo Molnar > M: mingo@redhat.com > L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > T: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/linux-2.6-lockdep.git > F: kernel/lock* > F: include/linux/lockdep.h > S: Maintained > > Note: there are files that fall under multiple maintainers so this > wouldnt be a 'precise' thing - but it would sure be useful. > > ( There's also other details like subdirectories within a larger > hiearchy and there being overlap between problems. Sometimes they > are sub-maintained, sometimes they are exclusive so pure glob > patterns are probably not enough. ) > > If this concept looks good to you ... i'd suggest that before you do > a large patch against MAINTAINERS mapping all the maintainer > domains, could you just do it for a few cases and send an RFC patch > to lkml? > > If there's a general upstream buy-in and a there's a > scripts/list-maintainers.sh script that takes advantage of it then > all this would be rather useful. (and i've Cc:-ed Andrew and Linus - > if this is to be shot down due to fundamental objections then better > do it at the early stages ;-) > > Plus checkpatch could be extended to check whether the Cc: list in a > patch properly matches the patterns in MAINTAINERS. > > If done propery this would save us from quite a few mechanic "hm, > who maintains _that_ file??" searches and it would also save > maintainers from quite a few "hm, who queued up _that_ crap without > Cc:-ing me??" moments. > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > That has already been done. Someone just so happened to submit such a patch today. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m3916809504492&w=2 Thanks, Jack