On 09.10.2025 10:19, Jason Andryuk wrote: > On 2025-10-09 08:36, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.10.2025 22:11, Jason Andryuk wrote: >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -220,6 +220,23 @@ F: xen/drivers/acpi/ >>> F: xen/include/acpi/ >>> F: tools/libacpi/ >>> >>> +AMD IOMMU >>> +M: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >>> +M: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> >>> +M: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> >>> +R: Jason Andryuk <[email protected]> >>> +S: Supported >>> +F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ >>> + >>> +AMD SVM >>> +M: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >>> +M: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> >>> +M: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> >>> +R: Jason Andryuk <[email protected]> >>> +S: Supported >>> +F: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/ >>> +F: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c >> >> What about xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/svm/ ? It didn't need specific >> mentioning on the X86 entry, but it would now. Also F: entries generally >> want sorting alphabetically as well. > > Yes, that all sounds good. I based this on a revert of > 8395f275ebd11b4cacb12da09911e7918ccc7518 and alphabetization was > incorrect there. Sorry about that. > >>> @@ -601,7 +618,8 @@ M: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> >>> S: Supported >>> L: [email protected] >>> F: xen/arch/x86/ >>> -F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ >>> +X: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/ >>> +X: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c >> >> Didn't the v1 discussion result in there being no need for these X: >> entries? > > I thought Anthony said they should be split out for proper nesting: > > >The exclusion is likely unnecessary, and ./get_maintainer.pl will just > >get the information (email, ...) from every sections that a file match. > >But the duplication is necessary due to the "The meaning of nesting" > >described in the MAINTAINERS file. > > I took the second sentence to mean they should remain.
But the 2nd sentence was about duplication (i.e. splitting), not exclusion. Jan
