Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 5/31/19 5:36 AM, Stafford Horne wrote: >> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 05:08:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> When scripts/get_maintainer.pl reports something like >> >> >> >> John Doe <j...@example.org> (maintainer:Overall) >> >> >> >> the user is left to wonder *which* of our three "Overall" sections >> >> applies. We have three, one each under "Guest CPU cores (TCG)", >> >> "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)", and "Overall usermode emulation". >> >> >> >> Rename sections under >> >> >> >> * "Guest CPU cores (TCG)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (TCG)" >> >> >> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (KVM)" >> >> >> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (Xen)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (Xen)" >> >> >> >> * "Architecture support" from "FOO" to "FOO general architecture >> >> support" >> >> >> >> * "Tiny Code Generator (TCG)" from "FOO target" to "FOO TCG target" >> >> >> >> While there, >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> >> MAINTAINERS | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- >> >> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) >> > >> > ... >> > >> >> -OpenRISC >> >> +OpenRISC CPU cores (TCG) >> >> M: Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com> >> >> S: Odd Fixes >> >> F: target/openrisc/ >> >> F: hw/openrisc/ >> >> F: tests/tcg/openrisc/ >> >> >> > >> > As directories listed there I look over both target/ (TCG?) and hw/. >> > Would it be better to be 'OpenRISC general architecture'? >> >> There is a historical separation between target/ and hw/ because they >> cover different concepts, and have different maintainers/reviewers. >> >> - target/$arch/ is for TCG/KVM >> - hw/ is for machines and their devices >> (some devices are reused by multiple archs) >> >> Although the separation is not always clear (some devices are tied to an >> architecture, some architecture instruction directly access devices) I'd >> prefer we keep 2 distincts MAINTAINERS sections (keeping you maintainer >> of both). This will ease developper with specific background/interests >> to volunteer to a particular section. > > Hello, > > Thanks for the explaination. I think it makes sense to have 2 different > maintainer sections. In that case should this patch be amended to move the > 'F: hw/openrisc/' etc out to a different section with the different header?
This patch merely improves headlines. Splitting up the OpenRISC section above should be separate. Care to send the patch?
