[PATCH v3 0/3] Update VMware maintainer entries

[PATCH v3 0/3] Update VMware maintainer entries

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

This series updates a few maintainer entries for VMware-maintained
subsystems and cleans up references to VMware's private mailing lists
to make it clear that they are effectively email-aliases to reach out
to reviewers.

Changes from v1->v3:
- Add Zack as the named maintainer for vmmouse driver
- Use R: to denote email-aliases for VMware reviewers

Regards,
Srivatsa

---

Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) (3):
      MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface
      MAINTAINERS: Add Zack as maintainer of vmmouse driver
      MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases


 MAINTAINERS |   30 +++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---

 MAINTAINERS |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 0ad926ba362f..0329d67c5bcf 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -14188,7 +14188,7 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h
 
 PARAVIRT_OPS INTERFACE
 M:	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
-M:	Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
+M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
 M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
 L:	x86@kernel.org
@@ -20038,10 +20038,13 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c
 
 VMWARE HYPERVISOR INTERFACE
-M:	Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
+M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
+M:	Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
 M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
+L:	x86@kernel.org
 S:	Supported
+T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/vmware
 F:	arch/x86/include/asm/vmware.h
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
 

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> 
> 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:50:39 +0100
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  
> 
> Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(

Probably not needed, but does it hurt?  And who's normal?

-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > 
> > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > 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 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.

Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > 
> > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > 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.

So this would have no affect at all, sorry.  That's why I asked if you
all really realized what you were doing here :)

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > 
> > > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > 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.

Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > 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.

I always ask that the current maintainers of the code be cc:ed when
asking for commits to be backported to the stable tree, so I think this
is not something you need to worry about.  I don't want to have to deal
with hundreds of patches to try to keep the MAINTAINERS file "up to
date" for this very very rare event.

You can prove me wrong by looking at our email archives and see where I
have missed ever doing this in the past 18 years and what the frequency
of it is...

But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material.

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:55:14AM +0100, Greg KH 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > > 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.
> 
> I always ask that the current maintainers of the code be cc:ed when
> asking for commits to be backported to the stable tree, so I think this
> is not something you need to worry about.  I don't want to have to deal
> with hundreds of patches to try to keep the MAINTAINERS file "up to
> date" for this very very rare event.
> 

Sounds good, thank you!

> You can prove me wrong by looking at our email archives and see where I
> have missed ever doing this in the past 18 years and what the frequency
> of it is...
>

I believe you :-)

> But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material.
>

I understand, and thank you for the clarification!

Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Sasha Levin]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
>> > > >
>> > > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
>> > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
>> > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
>> > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>> > > > 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).

It becomes a mess quite quickly and the easiest solution here is to just
use upstream's MAINTAINERS file.

Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
obvious.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > > 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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > 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.

I don't see how that's feasible.

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> I don't see how that's feasible.
> 

Not that I'm pushing for this change, but isn't it straight-forward to
distinguish upstream and stable kernel releases based on their
versioning schemes? The SUBLEVEL in the Makefile is always 0 for
upstream, and positive for stable versions (ignoring ancient kernels
like v2.6.32, of course). Since stable kernels are behind mainline by
definition, anytime the get_maintainer.pl script is invoked on a
kernel with a positive SUBLEVEL value, we can print out the said
warning/reminder (if it is considered useful).

Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 10:18 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > I don't see how that's feasible.
> > 
> 
> Not that I'm pushing for this change, but isn't it straight-forward to
> distinguish upstream and stable kernel releases based on their
> versioning schemes? The SUBLEVEL in the Makefile is always 0 for
> upstream, and positive for stable versions (ignoring ancient kernels
> like v2.6.32, of course). Since stable kernels are behind mainline by
> definition, anytime the get_maintainer.pl script is invoked on a
> kernel with a positive SUBLEVEL value, we can print out the said
> warning/reminder (if it is considered useful).

checkpatch doesn't work on trees, it works on patches.

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[PATCH v3 2/3] MAINTAINERS: Add Zack as maintainer of vmmouse driver

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>

Zack Rusin will be taking over the maintainership of the VMware
vmmouse driver. Update the MAINTAINERS file to reflect this change.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Acked-by: Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
Cc: linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com
Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---

 MAINTAINERS |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 0329d67c5bcf..21c0e49b80b9 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -20079,6 +20079,7 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/
 
 VMWARE VMMOUSE SUBDRIVER
+M:	Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
 M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
 M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-input@vger.kernel.org

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[PATCH v3 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>

VMware mailing lists in the MAINTAINERS file are private lists meant
for VMware-internal review/notification for patches to the respective
subsystems. Anyone can post to these addresses, but there is no public
read access like open mailing lists, which makes them more like email
aliases instead (to reach out to reviewers).

So update all the VMware mailing list references in the MAINTAINERS
file to mark them as such, using "R: email-alias@vmware.com".

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Vivek Thampi <vithampi@vmware.com>
Cc: Vishal Bhakta <vbhakta@vmware.com>
Cc: Ronak Doshi <doshir@vmware.com>
Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com
Cc: linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
---

 MAINTAINERS |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 21c0e49b80b9..073e00ef9434 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -6134,8 +6134,8 @@ T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
 F:	drivers/gpu/drm/vboxvideo/
 
 DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
-M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
 M:	Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware Graphics Reviewers <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
 L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 S:	Supported
 T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
@@ -14189,7 +14189,7 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h
 PARAVIRT_OPS INTERFACE
 M:	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
 M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
-M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
 L:	x86@kernel.org
 S:	Supported
@@ -20032,7 +20032,7 @@ F:	tools/testing/vsock/
 
 VMWARE BALLOON DRIVER
 M:	Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
-M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c
@@ -20040,7 +20040,7 @@ F:	drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c
 VMWARE HYPERVISOR INTERFACE
 M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
 M:	Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
-M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
 L:	x86@kernel.org
 S:	Supported
@@ -20050,14 +20050,14 @@ F:	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
 
 VMWARE PVRDMA DRIVER
 M:	Adit Ranadive <aditr@vmware.com>
-M:	VMware PV-Drivers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/infiniband/hw/vmw_pvrdma/
 
 VMware PVSCSI driver
 M:	Vishal Bhakta <vbhakta@vmware.com>
-M:	VMware PV-Drivers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/scsi/vmw_pvscsi.c
@@ -20065,7 +20065,7 @@ F:	drivers/scsi/vmw_pvscsi.h
 
 VMWARE VIRTUAL PTP CLOCK DRIVER
 M:	Vivek Thampi <vithampi@vmware.com>
-M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Supported
 F:	drivers/ptp/ptp_vmw.c
@@ -20073,15 +20073,15 @@ F:	drivers/ptp/ptp_vmw.c
 VMWARE VMCI DRIVER
 M:	Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>
 M:	Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
-L:	pv-drivers@vmware.com (private)
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/
 
 VMWARE VMMOUSE SUBDRIVER
 M:	Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
-M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
-M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware Graphics Reviewers <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	linux-input@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
@@ -20089,7 +20089,7 @@ F:	drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.h
 
 VMWARE VMXNET3 ETHERNET DRIVER
 M:	Ronak Doshi <doshir@vmware.com>
-M:	pv-drivers@vmware.com
+R:	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/net/vmxnet3/

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 17:39 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:09:06 -0800 Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >  DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
> > -M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
> >  M:	Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
> > +R:	VMware Graphics Reviewers <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
> >  L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> >  S:	Supported
> >  T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
> 
> It'd be preferable for these corporate entries to be marked or
> otherwise distinguishable so that we can ignore them when we try 
> to purge MAINTAINERS from developers who stopped participating.
> 
> These addresses will never show up in a commit tag which is normally
> sign of inactivity.

Funny.

The link below is from over 5 years ago.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1472081625.3746.217.camel@perches.com/

Almost all of those entries are still in MAINTAINERS.

I think the concept of purging is a non-issue.

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

[ Resending since my previous reply didn't reach the mailing lists. ]

On 11/11/21 5:55 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:19:53 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 17:39 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:09:06 -0800 Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:  
>>>>  DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
>>>> -M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
>>>>  M:	Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>
>>>> +R:	VMware Graphics Reviewers <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
>>>>  L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>  S:	Supported
>>>>  T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc  
>>>
>>> It'd be preferable for these corporate entries to be marked or
>>> otherwise distinguishable so that we can ignore them when we try 
>>> to purge MAINTAINERS from developers who stopped participating.
>>>
>>> These addresses will never show up in a commit tag which is normally
>>> sign of inactivity.  
>>
>> Funny.
>>
>> The link below is from over 5 years ago.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1472081625.3746.217.camel@perches.com/
>>
>> Almost all of those entries are still in MAINTAINERS.
>>
>> I think the concept of purging is a non-issue.
> 
> I cleaned networking in January and intend to do it again in 2 months.
> See:
> 
> 054c4610bd05 MAINTAINERS: dccp: move Gerrit Renker to CREDITS
> 4f3786e01194 MAINTAINERS: ipvs: move Wensong Zhang to CREDITS
> 0e4ed0b62b5a MAINTAINERS: tls: move Aviad to CREDITS
> c41efbf2ad56 MAINTAINERS: ena: remove Zorik Machulsky from reviewers
> 5e62d124f75a MAINTAINERS: vrf: move Shrijeet to CREDITS
> 09cd3f4683a9 MAINTAINERS: net: move Alexey Kuznetsov to CREDITS
> 93089de91e85 MAINTAINERS: altx: move Jay Cliburn to CREDITS
> 8b0f64b113d6 MAINTAINERS: remove names from mailing list maintainers
> 
I'm assuming the purging is not totally automated, is it? As long as
the entries are informative to a human reader, it should be possible
to skip the relevant ones when purging inactive entries.

I believe this patch makes the situation better than it is currently
(at least for the human reader), by marking lists without public
read-access in a format that is more appropriate. In the future, we
could perhaps improve on it to ease automation too, but for now I
think it is worthwhile to merge this change (unless there are strong
objections or better alternatives that everyone agrees on).

Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases

[Juergen Gross via Virtualization]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

On 10.11.21 21:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> 
> VMware mailing lists in the MAINTAINERS file are private lists meant
> for VMware-internal review/notification for patches to the respective
> subsystems. Anyone can post to these addresses, but there is no public
> read access like open mailing lists, which makes them more like email
> aliases instead (to reach out to reviewers).
> 
> So update all the VMware mailing list references in the MAINTAINERS
> file to mark them as such, using "R: email-alias@vmware.com".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>

Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3135 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization