MAINTAINERS updates in stable trees

MAINTAINERS updates in stable trees

[Sasha Levin]

I just saw an update to the MAINTAINERS file fly by on stable@ and
figured we might want to be grabbing all of those into our stable trees?

Unlike documentation, it's not something the case that it can diverge
from the code, and it's also very unlikely that someone wants to keep
recieving mails as a result of someone who runs get_maintainers.pl on
older kernels after he has removed his name upstream.

Any objections to taking these updates? It'll grow our patch count, but
that's one of the rare cases where I don't see a way for it to cause
regressions...

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha

Re: MAINTAINERS updates in stable trees

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I just saw an update to the MAINTAINERS file fly by on stable@ and
> figured we might want to be grabbing all of those into our stable trees?
> 
> Unlike documentation, it's not something the case that it can diverge
> from the code, and it's also very unlikely that someone wants to keep
> recieving mails as a result of someone who runs get_maintainers.pl on
> older kernels after he has removed his name upstream.
> 
> Any objections to taking these updates? It'll grow our patch count, but
> that's one of the rare cases where I don't see a way for it to cause
> regressions...

It's going to be a hodge-podge of acceptance and non acceptance here,
and in reality, it doesn't matter at all.  MAINTAINERS is to list where
to send problems to for the current development tree, not for the stable
trees.  So it's not going to be good to try to keep something up to date
when you need to make a patch against the development tree anyway.

Also, you will end up with file patterns and such getting out of date
and not matching up over time with older kernels, so I would just ignore
these entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h