From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65244C433EF for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DC2261B6F for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0DC2261B6F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=csail.mit.edu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33D7403B9; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hhveKGw8IGgO; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010:104::8cd3:938]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3A7340012; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A158C001E; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5316BC0012 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9796078A for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G2kwCO8Ov-6M for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu (outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu [128.30.2.210]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582F460763 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [128.177.79.46] (helo=csail.mit.edu) by outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1mmkZp-0005ex-25; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 17:35:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:39:00 -0800 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" To: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface Message-ID: <20211115223900.GA22267@csail.mit.edu> References: <163657479269.84207.13658789048079672839.stgit@srivatsa-dev> <163657487268.84207.5604596767569015608.stgit@srivatsa-dev> <20211111153916.GA7966@csail.mit.edu> <20211111194002.GA8739@csail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: jgross@suse.com, anishs@vmware.com, pv-drivers@vmware.com, Greg KH , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, keerthanak@vmware.com, namit@vmware.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, Alexey Makhalov , joe@perches.com, kuba@kernel.org X-BeenThere: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux virtualization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Virtualization" On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor > > > > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in > > > > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file > > > > > > to reflect this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) > > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov > > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah > > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > > > > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable? That's not normal :( > > > > > > > > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for > > > > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem > > > > maintainers. > > > > > > That's not how stable releases work at all. > > > > > > > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two > > > > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is > > > > just a cleanup. > > > > > > Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if > > > you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be > > > properly cc:ed. We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older > > > kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the > > > snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state. > > > > > > > Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and > > subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the > > MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline. > > > > When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was > > for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable, > > and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older > > stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor > > might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the > > tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not > > CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the > > maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too. > > If you look at cases like these, I can see an argument around bringing > it back to -stable. However, changes in the upstream MAINTAINERS file > aren't limited to just change in maintainers. > > How would we handle addition of maintainers of a new code upstream? Or > removal of maintainers due to code deletion? Or code movement upstream > that isn't reflected in the stable tree (think a driver graduating from > staging). > Good point! > It becomes a mess quite quickly and the easiest solution here is to just > use upstream's MAINTAINERS file. > Agreed. > Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it > obvious. > I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is invoked on an older stable kernel. Regards, Srivatsa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization