On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > However, for Linux releases after 5.4 I would rather get pull requests > for arch/riscv/kvm from Anup and Atish without involving the RISC-V > tree. Of course, they or I will ask for your ack, or for a topic > branch, on the occasion that something touches files outside their > maintainership area. This is how things are already being handled for > ARM, POWER and s390 and it allows me to handle conflicts in common KVM > files before they reach Linus; these are more common than conflicts in > arch files. If you have further questions on git and maintenance > workflows, just ask!
In principle, that's fine with me, as long as the arch/riscv maintainers and mailing lists are kept in the loop. We already do something similar to this for the RISC-V BPF JIT. However, I'd like this to be explicitly documented in the MAINTAINERS file, as it is for BPF. It looks like it isn't for ARM, POWER, or S390, either looking at MAINTAINERS or spot-checking scripts/get_maintainer.pl: $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)) Janosch Frank <[email protected]> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)) David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)) Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)) Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> (supporter:S390) Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]> (supporter:S390) [email protected] (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)) [email protected] (open list) $ Would you be willing to send a MAINTAINERS patch to formalize this practice? - Paul
