From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E36E24679D; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750363622; cv=none; b=hEDVq3g2KNtNpU0BJWS178Kqaonw7VfbPPUgud5etqkqgrFIPX3jUuZOElpPqlVOlo7PBF8j7cLJNIG+JI1Jqdz8HFjeDkzlh2ZVT/trxFwyaONeiLawCEkTH1VDszgPI1B+NLCUuk0JJjFVmce/3cv+OZnF/gClf4DnVtpRlMI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750363622; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x8nkZpBV8B1RfMXzIjaeghHZ0IZmHLuUDZJUgB28/C8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jpXM3fHQOGP1X2GQO8r6lzYTlX2H/D+tAtdWUOkX3sQPYvPe92Bigcp1UwnDkQwJ6qke5ds6E2U9KMTBRjk3EjfpM4qN/2Cpgpwv0krru8IuczTWwCBawMMl06HTE68E9e31ggeYL8u27mwymQOQlA9RcVQQyh6FCAhdrixLi0A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=rVUKW6py; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="rVUKW6py" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 7B75A41AD8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1750363619; bh=R9c4vgL7SuYf1vxfbbp+JsNTP8qE+XIiFw2ZuOXL6S8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=rVUKW6pywt1KAVhnsKmGFtuxGHE20Sn/qoL2NdO84G2FNt+qf2dslll76hqnx+p3W Bd8yIVeDuuAZh6A0J23a4GRqbZ5ovmDB7rPgiYGco+FQKEck4Brit0VA93ggk2Nkh2 fuK6N4b4x9AyLkHMukIzKOOejFe5RvgZx43Wg1RiYO5x+AulGvGXdv68l8v+K69shU VTbrrzDKYi5iMvUni58QUNlolykUJlpgzMNIpVB2ol/UH6gdYhzcSQoaHEcJwpdLK/ oY4FQkcPtcn7eSEeDqLQ7cn1VX67jckzQV/DSvPU5WhGIAedv/Xg8O9MhM+OUxUhiS LaJERjmb96X5Q== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B75A41AD8; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:06:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Jakub Kicinski , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Donald Hunter , Linux Doc Mailing List , Akira Yokosawa , Breno Leitao , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Ignacio Encinas Rubio , Jan Stancek , Marco Elver , Paolo Abeni , Ruben Wauters , Shuah Khan , joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkmm@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] MAINTAINERS: add maintainers for netlink_yml_parser.py In-Reply-To: <20250614124649.2c41407c@kernel.org> References: <20250614173235.7374027a@foz.lan> <20250614103700.0be60115@kernel.org> <20250614205609.50e7c3ad@foz.lan> <20250614124649.2c41407c@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:06:58 -0600 Message-ID: <877c17h4wt.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: lkmm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jakub Kicinski writes: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:56:09 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> I'm more interested on having a single place where python libraries >> could be placed. > > Me too, especially for selftests. But it's not clear to me that > scripts/ is the right location. I thought purely user space code > should live in tools/ and bulk of YNL is for user space. I've been out wandering the woods and canyons with no connectivity for a bit, so missed this whole discussion, sorry. Mauro and I had talked about the proper home for Python libraries when he reworked kernel-doc; we ended up with them under scripts/, which I didn't find entirely pleasing. If you were to ask me today, I'd say they should be under lib/python, but tomorrow I might say something else... In truth, I don't think it matters much, but I *do* think we should have a single location from which to import kernel-specific Python code. Spreading it throughout the tree just isn't going to lead to joy. Thanks, jon