[PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Justin Stitt]

This series aims to add "D:" which behaves exactly the same as "K:" but
works only on patch files.

The goal of this is to reduce noise when folks use get_maintainer on
tree files as opposed to patches. "D:" should help maintainers reduce
noise in their inboxes, especially when matching omnipresent
keywords like [1]. In the event of [1] Kees would be to/cc'd from folks
running get_maintainer on _any_ file containing "__counted_by". The
number of these files is rising and I fear for his inbox as his goal, as
I understand it, is to simply monitor the introduction of new
__counted_by annotations to ensure accurate semantics.

Joe mentioned in v1 that perhaps K: should be reworked to only consider
patch files. I wonder, though, if folks are intentionally using the
current behavior of K: and thus would be peeved from a change there. I
see this series as, at the very least, a gentle migration in behavior
which is purely opt-in and at some point could eagerly be merged with
K:.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230925172037.work.853-kees@kernel.org/

Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- remove bits about non-patch usage being bad (thanks Greg, Kees, et al.)
- remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
  bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
  point?)
- add some migration from K to D (thanks Kees, Nick)
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230927-get_maintainer_add_d-v1-0-28c207229e72@google.com

---
Justin Stitt (2):
      get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching
      MAINTAINERS: migrate some K to D

 MAINTAINERS               | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 12 ++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 6465e260f48790807eef06b583b38ca9789b6072
change-id: 20230926-get_maintainer_add_d-07424a814e72

Best regards,
--
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>

[PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching

[Justin Stitt]

Add the "D:" type which behaves the same as "K:" but will only match
content present in a patch file.

To illustrate:

Imagine this entry in MAINTAINERS:

NEW REPUBLIC
M: Han Solo <hansolo@rebelalliance.co>
W: https://www.jointheresistance.org
D: \bstrncpy\b

Our maintainer, Han, will only be added to the recipients if a patch
file is passed to get_maintainer (like what b4 does):
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl 0004-some-change.patch

If the above patch has a `strncpy` present in the subject, commit log or
diff then Han will be to/cc'd.

However, in the event of a file from the tree given like:
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl ./lib/string.c

Han will not be noisily to/cc'd (like a K: type would in this
circumstance)

Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS               |  5 +++++
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 12 ++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index b19995690904..94e431daa7c2 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
 	      matches patches or files that contain one or more of the words
 	      printk, pr_info or pr_err
 	   One regex pattern per line.  Multiple K: lines acceptable.
+  D: *Diff content regex* (perl extended) pattern match that applies only to
+     patches and not entire files (e.g. when using the get_maintainers.pl
+     script).
+     Usage same as K:.
+
 
 Maintainers List
 ----------------
diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
index ab123b498fd9..a3e697926ddd 100755
--- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($lk_path)) {
 
 my @typevalue = ();
 my %keyword_hash;
+my %patch_keyword_hash;
 my @mfiles = ();
 my @self_test_info = ();
 
@@ -369,8 +370,10 @@ sub read_maintainer_file {
 		    $value =~ s@([^/])$@$1/@;
 		}
 	    } elsif ($type eq "K") {
-		$keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
-	    }
+          $keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
+	    } elsif ($type eq "D") {
+          $patch_keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
+      }
 	    push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
 	} elsif (!(/^\s*$/ || /^\s*\#/)) {
 	    push(@typevalue, $line);
@@ -607,6 +610,11 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
 			push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
 		    }
 		}
+    foreach my $line(keys %patch_keyword_hash) {
+      if ($patch_line =~ m/${patch_prefix}$patch_keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
+        push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
+      }
+    }
 	    }
 	}
 	close($patch);

-- 
2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> Add the "D:" type which behaves the same as "K:" but will only match
> content present in a patch file.
> 
> To illustrate:
> 
> Imagine this entry in MAINTAINERS:
> 
> NEW REPUBLIC
> M: Han Solo <hansolo@rebelalliance.co>
> W: https://www.jointheresistance.org
> D: \bstrncpy\b
> 
> Our maintainer, Han, will only be added to the recipients if a patch
> file is passed to get_maintainer (like what b4 does):
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl 0004-some-change.patch
> 
> If the above patch has a `strncpy` present in the subject, commit log or
> diff then Han will be to/cc'd.
> 
> However, in the event of a file from the tree given like:
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl ./lib/string.c
> 
> Han will not be noisily to/cc'd (like a K: type would in this
> circumstance)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS               |  5 +++++
>  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 12 ++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index b19995690904..94e431daa7c2 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
>  	      matches patches or files that contain one or more of the words
>  	      printk, pr_info or pr_err
>  	   One regex pattern per line.  Multiple K: lines acceptable.
> +  D: *Diff content regex* (perl extended) pattern match that applies only to
> +     patches and not entire files (e.g. when using the get_maintainers.pl
> +     script).
> +     Usage same as K:.
> +
>  
>  Maintainers List
>  ----------------
> diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> index ab123b498fd9..a3e697926ddd 100755
> --- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> +++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($lk_path)) {
>  
>  my @typevalue = ();
>  my %keyword_hash;
> +my %patch_keyword_hash;
>  my @mfiles = ();
>  my @self_test_info = ();
>  
> @@ -369,8 +370,10 @@ sub read_maintainer_file {
>  		    $value =~ s@([^/])$@$1/@;
>  		}
>  	    } elsif ($type eq "K") {
> -		$keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> -	    }
> +          $keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> +	    } elsif ($type eq "D") {
> +          $patch_keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> +      }
>  	    push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
>  	} elsif (!(/^\s*$/ || /^\s*\#/)) {
>  	    push(@typevalue, $line);
> @@ -607,6 +610,11 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
>  			push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
>  		    }
>  		}
> +    foreach my $line(keys %patch_keyword_hash) {
> +      if ($patch_line =~ m/${patch_prefix}$patch_keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
> +        push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
> +      }
> +    }
>  	    }
>  	}
>  	close($patch);
> 


My opinion: Nack.

I think something like this would be better
as it avoids duplication of K and D content.
---
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
index ab123b498fd9..07e7d744cadb 100755
--- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ my $subsystem = 0;
 my $status = 0;
 my $letters = "";
 my $keywords = 1;
+my $keywords_in_file = 0;
 my $sections = 0;
 my $email_file_emails = 0;
 my $from_filename = 0;
@@ -272,6 +273,7 @@ if (!GetOptions(
 		'letters=s' => \$letters,
 		'pattern-depth=i' => \$pattern_depth,
 		'k|keywords!' => \$keywords,
+		'kf|keywords-in-file!' => \$keywords_in_file,
 		'sections!' => \$sections,
 		'fe|file-emails!' => \$email_file_emails,
 		'f|file' => \$from_filename,
@@ -318,6 +320,7 @@ if ($sections || $letters ne "") {
     $subsystem = 0;
     $web = 0;
     $keywords = 0;
+    $keywords_in_file = 0;
     $interactive = 0;
 } else {
     my $selections = $email + $scm + $status + $subsystem + $web;
@@ -548,16 +551,14 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
 	$file =~ s/^\Q${cur_path}\E//;	#strip any absolute path
 	$file =~ s/^\Q${lk_path}\E//;	#or the path to the lk tree
 	push(@files, $file);
-	if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && $keywords) {
+	if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && $keywords && $keywords_in_file) {
 	    open(my $f, '<', $file)
 		or die "$P: Can't open $file: $!\n";
 	    my $text = do { local($/) ; <$f> };
 	    close($f);
-	    if ($keywords) {
-		foreach my $line (keys %keyword_hash) {
-		    if ($text =~ m/$keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
-			push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
-		    }
+	    foreach my $line (keys %keyword_hash) {
+		if ($text =~ m/$keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
+		    push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
 		}
 	    }
 	}
@@ -1076,6 +1077,7 @@ Output type options:
 Other options:
   --pattern-depth => Number of pattern directory traversals (default: 0 (all))
   --keywords => scan patch for keywords (default: $keywords)
+  --keywords-in-file => scan file for keywords (default: $keywords_in_file)
   --sections => print all of the subsystem sections with pattern matches
   --letters => print all matching 'letter' types from all matching sections
   --mailmap => use .mailmap file (default: $email_use_mailmap)
@@ -1086,7 +1088,7 @@ Other options:
 
 Default options:
   [--email --tree --nogit --git-fallback --m --r --n --l --multiline
-   --pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats]
+   --pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats --keywords]
 
 Notes:
   Using "-f directory" may give unexpected results:

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching

[Justin Stitt]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 1:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > Add the "D:" type which behaves the same as "K:" but will only match
> > content present in a patch file.
> >
> > To illustrate:
> >
> > Imagine this entry in MAINTAINERS:
> >
> > NEW REPUBLIC
> > M: Han Solo <hansolo@rebelalliance.co>
> > W: https://www.jointheresistance.org
> > D: \bstrncpy\b
> >
> > Our maintainer, Han, will only be added to the recipients if a patch
> > file is passed to get_maintainer (like what b4 does):
> > $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl 0004-some-change.patch
> >
> > If the above patch has a `strncpy` present in the subject, commit log or
> > diff then Han will be to/cc'd.
> >
> > However, in the event of a file from the tree given like:
> > $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl ./lib/string.c
> >
> > Han will not be noisily to/cc'd (like a K: type would in this
> > circumstance)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS               |  5 +++++
> >  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index b19995690904..94e431daa7c2 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
> >             matches patches or files that contain one or more of the words
> >             printk, pr_info or pr_err
> >          One regex pattern per line.  Multiple K: lines acceptable.
> > +  D: *Diff content regex* (perl extended) pattern match that applies only to
> > +     patches and not entire files (e.g. when using the get_maintainers.pl
> > +     script).
> > +     Usage same as K:.
> > +
> >
> >  Maintainers List
> >  ----------------
> > diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> > index ab123b498fd9..a3e697926ddd 100755
> > --- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> > @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($lk_path)) {
> >
> >  my @typevalue = ();
> >  my %keyword_hash;
> > +my %patch_keyword_hash;
> >  my @mfiles = ();
> >  my @self_test_info = ();
> >
> > @@ -369,8 +370,10 @@ sub read_maintainer_file {
> >                   $value =~ s@([^/])$@$1/@;
> >               }
> >           } elsif ($type eq "K") {
> > -             $keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> > -         }
> > +          $keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> > +         } elsif ($type eq "D") {
> > +          $patch_keyword_hash{@typevalue} = $value;
> > +      }
> >           push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
> >       } elsif (!(/^\s*$/ || /^\s*\#/)) {
> >           push(@typevalue, $line);
> > @@ -607,6 +610,11 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
> >                       push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
> >                   }
> >               }
> > +    foreach my $line(keys %patch_keyword_hash) {
> > +      if ($patch_line =~ m/${patch_prefix}$patch_keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
> > +        push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
> > +      }
> > +    }
> >           }
> >       }
> >       close($patch);
> >
>
>
> My opinion: Nack.
>
> I think something like this would be better
> as it avoids duplication of K and D content.

If I understand correctly, this puts the onus on the get_maintainer users
to select the right argument whereas adding "D:", albeit with some
duplicate code, allows maintainers themselves to decide in exactly
which context they receive mail.

Adding a command line flag means sometimes K: is treated one
way and sometimes treated a different way depending on
the specific incantation.

This could all be a moot point, though, as I believe Konstantin
is trying to separate out the whole idea of a patch-sender needing
to specify the recipients of a patch. Instead some middleware would
capture mail and delegate automatically based on some queries
set up by maintainers.

Exciting idea, I wonder what the progress is on that?

Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230726-june-mocha-ad6809@meerkat/

> ---
>  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> index ab123b498fd9..07e7d744cadb 100755
> --- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> +++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ my $subsystem = 0;
>  my $status = 0;
>  my $letters = "";
>  my $keywords = 1;
> +my $keywords_in_file = 0;
>  my $sections = 0;
>  my $email_file_emails = 0;
>  my $from_filename = 0;
> @@ -272,6 +273,7 @@ if (!GetOptions(
>                 'letters=s' => \$letters,
>                 'pattern-depth=i' => \$pattern_depth,
>                 'k|keywords!' => \$keywords,
> +               'kf|keywords-in-file!' => \$keywords_in_file,
>                 'sections!' => \$sections,
>                 'fe|file-emails!' => \$email_file_emails,
>                 'f|file' => \$from_filename,
> @@ -318,6 +320,7 @@ if ($sections || $letters ne "") {
>      $subsystem = 0;
>      $web = 0;
>      $keywords = 0;
> +    $keywords_in_file = 0;
>      $interactive = 0;
>  } else {
>      my $selections = $email + $scm + $status + $subsystem + $web;
> @@ -548,16 +551,14 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
>         $file =~ s/^\Q${cur_path}\E//;  #strip any absolute path
>         $file =~ s/^\Q${lk_path}\E//;   #or the path to the lk tree
>         push(@files, $file);
> -       if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && $keywords) {
> +       if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && $keywords && $keywords_in_file) {
>             open(my $f, '<', $file)
>                 or die "$P: Can't open $file: $!\n";
>             my $text = do { local($/) ; <$f> };
>             close($f);
> -           if ($keywords) {
> -               foreach my $line (keys %keyword_hash) {
> -                   if ($text =~ m/$keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
> -                       push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
> -                   }
> +           foreach my $line (keys %keyword_hash) {
> +               if ($text =~ m/$keyword_hash{$line}/x) {
> +                   push(@keyword_tvi, $line);
>                 }
>             }
>         }
> @@ -1076,6 +1077,7 @@ Output type options:
>  Other options:
>    --pattern-depth => Number of pattern directory traversals (default: 0 (all))
>    --keywords => scan patch for keywords (default: $keywords)
> +  --keywords-in-file => scan file for keywords (default: $keywords_in_file)
>    --sections => print all of the subsystem sections with pattern matches
>    --letters => print all matching 'letter' types from all matching sections
>    --mailmap => use .mailmap file (default: $email_use_mailmap)
> @@ -1086,7 +1088,7 @@ Other options:
>
>  Default options:
>    [--email --tree --nogit --git-fallback --m --r --n --l --multiline
> -   --pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats]
> +   --pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats --keywords]
>
>  Notes:
>    Using "-f directory" may give unexpected results:
>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:03 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 1:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > Add the "D:" type which behaves the same as "K:" but will only match
> > > content present in a patch file.
[]
> > > My opinion: Nack.
> > 
> > I think something like this would be better
> > as it avoids duplication of K and D content.
> 
> If I understand correctly, this puts the onus on the get_maintainer users
> to select the right argument whereas adding "D:", albeit with some
> duplicate code, allows maintainers themselves to decide in exactly
> which context they receive mail.

Maybe, but I doubt it'll be significantly different.


> This could all be a moot point, though, as I believe Konstantin
> is trying to separate out the whole idea of a patch-sender needing
> to specify the recipients of a patch.

As I understand it, by using get_maintainer.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword-matching

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:08:33PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > This could all be a moot point, though, as I believe Konstantin
> > is trying to separate out the whole idea of a patch-sender needing
> > to specify the recipients of a patch.
> 
> As I understand it, by using get_maintainer.

Correct, we will ultimately still defer to get_maintainer to figure out who
needs to be added.

-K

[PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: migrate some K to D

[Justin Stitt]

Let's get the ball rolling with some changes from K to D.

Ultimately, if it turns out that 100% of K users want to change to D
then really the behavior of K could just be changed.

Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Original-author: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 94e431daa7c2..80ffdaa8f044 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -5038,7 +5038,7 @@ F:	Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst
 F:	include/linux/compiler-clang.h
 F:	scripts/Makefile.clang
 F:	scripts/clang-tools/
-K:	\b(?i:clang|llvm)\b
+D:	\b(?i:clang|llvm)\b
 
 CLK API
 M:	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
@@ -8149,7 +8149,7 @@ F:	lib/strcat_kunit.c
 F:	lib/strscpy_kunit.c
 F:	lib/test_fortify/*
 F:	scripts/test_fortify.sh
-K:	\b__NO_FORTIFY\b
+D:	\b__NO_FORTIFY\b
 
 FPGA DFL DRIVERS
 M:	Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
@@ -11405,8 +11405,10 @@ F:	Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-warn_count
 F:	include/linux/overflow.h
 F:	include/linux/randomize_kstack.h
 F:	mm/usercopy.c
-K:	\b(add|choose)_random_kstack_offset\b
-K:	\b__check_(object_size|heap_object)\b
+D:	\b(add|choose)_random_kstack_offset\b
+D:	\b__check_(object_size|heap_object)\b
+D:	\b__counted_by\b
+
 
 KERNEL JANITORS
 L:	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
@@ -17290,7 +17292,7 @@ F:	drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c
 F:	drivers/firmware/efi/efi-pstore.c
 F:	fs/pstore/
 F:	include/linux/pstore*
-K:	\b(pstore|ramoops)
+D:	\b(pstore|ramoops)
 
 PTP HARDWARE CLOCK SUPPORT
 M:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
@@ -19231,8 +19233,8 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
 F:	kernel/seccomp.c
 F:	tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
 F:	tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/*
-K:	\bsecure_computing
-K:	\bTIF_SECCOMP\b
+D:	\bsecure_computing
+D:	\bTIF_SECCOMP\b
 
 SECURE DIGITAL HOST CONTROLLER INTERFACE (SDHCI) Broadcom BRCMSTB DRIVER
 M:	Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu@broadcom.com>

-- 
2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: migrate some K to D

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> Let's get the ball rolling with some changes from K to D.
> 
> Ultimately, if it turns out that 100% of K users want to change to D
> then really the behavior of K could just be changed.

Given my suggestion to 1/2, this would be unnecessary.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
> Original-author: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 94e431daa7c2..80ffdaa8f044 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -5038,7 +5038,7 @@ F:	Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst
>  F:	include/linux/compiler-clang.h
>  F:	scripts/Makefile.clang
>  F:	scripts/clang-tools/
> -K:	\b(?i:clang|llvm)\b
> +D:	\b(?i:clang|llvm)\b
>  
>  CLK API
>  M:	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> @@ -8149,7 +8149,7 @@ F:	lib/strcat_kunit.c
>  F:	lib/strscpy_kunit.c
>  F:	lib/test_fortify/*
>  F:	scripts/test_fortify.sh
> -K:	\b__NO_FORTIFY\b
> +D:	\b__NO_FORTIFY\b
>  
>  FPGA DFL DRIVERS
>  M:	Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
> @@ -11405,8 +11405,10 @@ F:	Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-warn_count
>  F:	include/linux/overflow.h
>  F:	include/linux/randomize_kstack.h
>  F:	mm/usercopy.c
> -K:	\b(add|choose)_random_kstack_offset\b
> -K:	\b__check_(object_size|heap_object)\b
> +D:	\b(add|choose)_random_kstack_offset\b
> +D:	\b__check_(object_size|heap_object)\b
> +D:	\b__counted_by\b
> +
>  
>  KERNEL JANITORS
>  L:	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
> @@ -17290,7 +17292,7 @@ F:	drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c
>  F:	drivers/firmware/efi/efi-pstore.c
>  F:	fs/pstore/
>  F:	include/linux/pstore*
> -K:	\b(pstore|ramoops)
> +D:	\b(pstore|ramoops)
>  
>  PTP HARDWARE CLOCK SUPPORT
>  M:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
> @@ -19231,8 +19233,8 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>  F:	kernel/seccomp.c
>  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
>  F:	tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/*
> -K:	\bsecure_computing
> -K:	\bTIF_SECCOMP\b
> +D:	\bsecure_computing
> +D:	\bTIF_SECCOMP\b
>  
>  SECURE DIGITAL HOST CONTROLLER INTERFACE (SDHCI) Broadcom BRCMSTB DRIVER
>  M:	Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu@broadcom.com>
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> Changes in v2:
> - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
>   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
>   point?)

Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Justin Stitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > Changes in v2:
> > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> >   point?)
>
> Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
>

Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
a mixture of
tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing.

Some lines start with a bunch of spaces, other lines start with a tab character.
This interleaving of tabs and spaces to start lines makes some editor configs
render it weirdly.

Notice how any .c file in the kernel only starts with tabs and thus is rendered
consistently.

ctrl+f for "\t" and see that some lines are tabbed and others are not.
I attached a screenshot to this email showing this.

However, now that I understand the issue more clearly this is definitely
not as big an issue as I thought.

[-- Attachment #2: Screenshot 2023-09-28 2.24.19 PM.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 136813 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:31 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> > >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> > >   point?)
> > 
> > Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
> > 
> 
> Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
> a mixture of
> tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
> 8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing
> 

Yes, it's a bit odd indentation.
It's emacs default perl format.
4 space indent with 8 space tabs, maximal tab fill.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:09 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:31 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> > > >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> > > >   point?)
> > >
> > > Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
> > >
> >
> > Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
> > a mixture of
> > tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
> > 8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing
> >
>
> Yes, it's a bit odd indentation.
> It's emacs default perl format.
> 4 space indent with 8 space tabs, maximal tab fill.
>

Oh! What?! That's the most surprising convention I've ever heard of
(after the GNU C coding style).  Yet another thing to hold against
perl I guess. :P

I have my editor setup to highlight tabs vs spaces via visual cues, so
that I don't mess up kernel coding style. (`git clang-format HEAD~`
after a commit helps).  scripts/get_maintainer.pl has some serious
inconsistencies to the point where I'm not sure what it should or was
meant to be.  Now that you mention it, I see it, and it does seem
consistent in that regard.

Justin, is your formatter configurable to match that convention?
Maybe it's still useful, as long as you configure it to stick to the
pre-existing convention.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Justin Stitt]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:52 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:09 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:31 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> > > > >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> > > > >   point?)
> > > >
> > > > Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
> > > a mixture of
> > > tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
> > > 8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it's a bit odd indentation.
> > It's emacs default perl format.
> > 4 space indent with 8 space tabs, maximal tab fill.
> >
>
> Oh! What?! That's the most surprising convention I've ever heard of
> (after the GNU C coding style).  Yet another thing to hold against
> perl I guess. :P
>
> I have my editor setup to highlight tabs vs spaces via visual cues, so
> that I don't mess up kernel coding style. (`git clang-format HEAD~`
> after a commit helps).  scripts/get_maintainer.pl has some serious
> inconsistencies to the point where I'm not sure what it should or was
> meant to be.  Now that you mention it, I see it, and it does seem
> consistent in that regard.
>
> Justin, is your formatter configurable to match that convention?
> Maybe it's still useful, as long as you configure it to stick to the
> pre-existing convention.

Negative, all the perl formatters I've tried will convert everything to spaces.
The best I've seen is perltidy.

https://gist.github.com/JustinStitt/347385921c80a5212c2672075aa769b6

> --
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 11:07 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:52 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:09 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:31 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> > > > > >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> > > > > >   point?)
> > > > > 

LG G7 Battery Replacement | Guide | Is it actually a Samsung? I t
> > > > > Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
> > > > a mixture of
> > > > tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
> > > > 8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, it's a bit odd indentation.
> > > It's emacs default perl format.
> > > 4 space indent with 8 space tabs, maximal tab fill.
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh! What?! That's the most surprising convention I've ever heard of
> > (after the GNU C coding style).  Yet another thing to hold against
> > perl I guess. :P
> > 
> > I have my editor setup to highlight tabs vs spaces via visual cues, so
> > that I don't mess up kernel coding style. (`git clang-format HEAD~`
> > after a commit helps).  scripts/get_maintainer.pl has some serious
> > inconsistencies to the point where I'm not sure what it should or was
> > meant to be.  Now that you mention it, I see it, and it does seem
> > consistent in that regard.
> > 
> > Justin, is your formatter configurable to match that convention?
> > Maybe it's still useful, as long as you configure it to stick to the
> > pre-existing convention.
> 
> Negative, all the perl formatters I've tried will convert everything to spaces.
> The best I've seen is perltidy.
> 
> https://gist.github.com/JustinStitt/347385921c80a5212c2672075aa769b6

emacs with cperl mode works fine.

I don't know much about vim, but when I open this file in vim
it looks perfectly normal and it's apparently properly syntax
highlighted.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Justin Stitt]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:50 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 11:07 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:52 AM Nick Desaulniers
> > <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:09 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 14:31 +0900, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 04:23 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > - remove formatting pass (thanks Joe) (but seriously the formatting is
> > > > > > >   bad, is there opportunity to get a formatting pass in here at some
> > > > > > >   point?)
> > > > > >
>
> LG G7 Battery Replacement | Guide | Is it actually a Samsung? I t
> > > > > > Why?  What is it that makes you believe the formatting is bad?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigating further, it looked especially bad in my editor. There is
> > > > > a mixture of
> > > > > tabs and spaces and my vim tabstop is set to 4 for pl files. Setting this to
> > > > > 8 is a whole lot better. But I still see some weird spacing
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's a bit odd indentation.
> > > > It's emacs default perl format.
> > > > 4 space indent with 8 space tabs, maximal tab fill.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh! What?! That's the most surprising convention I've ever heard of
> > > (after the GNU C coding style).  Yet another thing to hold against
> > > perl I guess. :P
> > >
> > > I have my editor setup to highlight tabs vs spaces via visual cues, so
> > > that I don't mess up kernel coding style. (`git clang-format HEAD~`
> > > after a commit helps).  scripts/get_maintainer.pl has some serious
> > > inconsistencies to the point where I'm not sure what it should or was
> > > meant to be.  Now that you mention it, I see it, and it does seem
> > > consistent in that regard.
> > >
> > > Justin, is your formatter configurable to match that convention?
> > > Maybe it's still useful, as long as you configure it to stick to the
> > > pre-existing convention.
> >
> > Negative, all the perl formatters I've tried will convert everything to spaces.
> > The best I've seen is perltidy.
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/JustinStitt/347385921c80a5212c2672075aa769b6
>
> emacs with cperl mode works fine.
>
> I don't know much about vim, but when I open this file in vim
> it looks perfectly normal and it's apparently properly syntax
> highlighted.
>

I believe a :set tabstop=2 will make it look weird. But really,
this whole formatting thing is a non-issue for me personally
once I discovered what the problem was. I'm not sure this
file attracts nearly enough eyes to warrant an eager
formatting attempt as I was previously preaching for.

Nick and I using vim with special tab handling are most definitely
the exception and for most folks this file probably looks fine.