From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754516AbbJ0XZo (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:25:44 -0400 Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:35794 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752161AbbJ0XZj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:25:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:25:26 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Joe Perches Cc: Lee Jones , "Theodore Ts'o" , Javier Martinez Canillas , Laura Abbott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default Message-ID: <20151027232526.GA1572@katana> References: <562EB07B.9040501@redhat.com> <562EC06C.5010404@osg.samsung.com> <20151027024729.GC16244@thunk.org> <20151027082150.GQ597@x1> <20151027092411.GA3405@katana> <20151027101022.GA5828@x1> <20151027102950.GB3405@katana> <1445968175.2757.14.camel@perches.com> <1445970099.2757.22.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T4sUOijqQbZv57TR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1445970099.2757.22.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Another option would be to add another pattern to the > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/: > --- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index fb7d2e4..c670e1f 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -5104,6 +5104,7 @@ S: Maintained > F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ > F: Documentation/i2c/ > F: drivers/i2c/ > +F: drivers/i2c/*/ Hmm, what would be the drawback of extending the meaning of 'drivers/i2c/' to include 'drivers/i2c/*/'? To be honest, I assumed it works this way already and I'd think I am not alone with that assumption. Thanks for looking into this! --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWMAfmAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2wwgP/iBOMnucNBKwKOwZNwtFovqn BJAr2jiJYS6+vftXJUQDHPMrokIMerMH1AmnwEqV1Bva+u3rt4Mo6NnWrQaxoJzp v51cmDYnJwkQQKqZQ/ASV7j6ACrxtiIxQks+jvA7N9Y8sY3i+C5nKQFcP0o4/jdO VsMpeoUIiiTV77WJ2yBOWlhHZzX2NboPliDgUzbd48qLSp3jcDh+geZGWovxB868 agyO1uIgQHAfPopA24lKYeDAIc6lyQuPN0D+GwdQnEb+TvLuB67gLMRJXDaSaUSl zW4Dz2MwfsB9PfJywEpQ5CrPgZXdtOBWNz9LUujP9f6PUe65NjUgNYxaJSVnYAEQ IBVPEbJEloSDSAt/cnp58QLsj1pyqnU4JkLZQ6djQR4MHqelhPOjBCqBmNGjNm8A /xM7/VekCaRHGdLPzolFVpIQpTAA+/AhmgnirfliNi9JJpC2/Jy8tzh6YMAyhU+U QeDNpXtrjsSgsGo06Zds7t+XzfURfbHzjDCqJeESb0UIvxbkgADBhKhXVW13b5yA axkFCFtV6bUmRD0O5fLr7VLvk6FiMnI3ZJXTOXqUDGsBOwkIg+yRjp45Uy8KOUdy 6h88FFaoM1nWMd9JVxvx0jVmivjDhudpr42NgbK5ve/BWlD19NmFTNwiRU3EVjNC t3bFAvad3r+tbWJ3ZTf+ =k5bI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--