On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:51:54AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 04.01.19 at 11:33, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > > passthrough/x86 is tied to the x86 code, and as such put it under x86 > > maintainership. > > It is tied to both, so at the very least I object to ... > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ F: xen/drivers/passthrough/ > > X: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ > > X: xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/ > > X: xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/ > > +X: xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/ > > ... this; the Arm entry here is questionable too, imo. > > > @@ -445,6 +446,7 @@ R: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> > > S: Supported > > L: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > > F: xen/arch/x86/ > > +F: xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/ > > This one's debatable.
So you would agree to adding xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/ under x86 maintainership as long as it's also left under the generic IOMMU support entry? Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
