From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929ACC433E0 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 588C9206C3 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="akaCTK/u" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 588C9206C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jtSxV-0001cx-82; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:35:13 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jtSxT-0001cs-Br for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:35:11 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 7b270966-c1c7-11ea-8496-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.153]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 7b270966-c1c7-11ea-8496-bc764e2007e4; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:35:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1594287310; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=gqMCyMr9A6fAlEZaEvpq/W0eCaBGhGhpO8X4MLxTtp0=; b=akaCTK/udqsczFGOLS7YtPKJc1W/TlmjeUXf6QnFEDV3to8cS+yXFNXA eB6Gvw3i4DrVGzMiZFrbUYTN0psvN/aCaN67VkRuc3LSJkcX6x+njy5iw EfiORaofF85jZWImKwq7ofmqMov5P6fJ95L5lstQS89HL4gv9v4eNV7wP 0=; Authentication-Results: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: xcFvwX9mLqd7rZFTNTw/Ng0DWImv0Jfo1s53jxr/IKq3ViG0Xh/62gx2BFJUy46sk9Ih0weSci I9KlqXGrEpRufggJK+NNrGigg1InEv6h2jELrmbeKOdK3JlyR88vQdriHkbCic98U6g9ap8CqR /u9LzyIk7HockGinLfDvpjPBfLYiDCHVsIDcnyGYeOiG76f9EtryuYw5wdphQ+NqC61jGrQfHw kryzwTTiX0xbo9/IG1XmKSfMq2r7+Q4KXYUFiAJ9cxyOBBegd6fwmsFHAR3/RN2o6ktc9EIWzR D10= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 21956476 X-Ironport-Server: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,331,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="21956476" Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:34:54 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: =?utf-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= Subject: Re: Followup of yesterday's design session "refactoring the REST" Message-ID: <20200709093454.GF7191@Air-de-Roger> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 07:56:58AM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote: > Yesterday's design session at Xen Developer Summit "Hypervisor Team: .." > had one topic regarding whether we should find specific maintainers of > all the files currently assigned to "THE REST" in order to lower the > amount of reviews for those assigned to be "THE REST" maintainers. > > Modifying the MAINTAINERS file adding "REST@x.y" as REST maintainer > and running the rune: > > git ls-files | while true; do f=`line`; [ "$f" = "" ] && exit; \ > echo $f `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f | awk '{print $(NF)}'`; \ > done | awk '/REST/ { print $1}' > > shows that basically the following files are covered by "THE REST": > > - files directly in / > - config/ > - most files in docs/ (not docs/man/) > - misc/ (only one file) > - scripts/ > - lots of files in xen/common/ > - xen/crypto/ > - lots of files in xen/drivers/ > - lots of files in xen/include/ > - xen/scripts/ > - some files in xen/tools/ > > I have attached the file list. Thanks! I still have to go over the list in more detail, just some comments below. > So the basic idea to have a "hypervisor REST" and a "tools REST" > wouldn't make a huge difference, if we don't assign docs/ to "tools > REST". > > So I think it would make sense to: > > - look through the docs/ and xen/include/ files whether some of those > can be assigned to a component already having dedicated maintainers > > - try to find maintainers for the other files, especially those in > xen/common/ and xen/drivers/ (including the related include files, of > course) I think it's important that xen/common files (specially the ones containing interfaces exposed to guests) have at least one maintainer from each supported architecture (Arm and x86 ATM), plus whatever common code maintainers we want to have. It's sometimes easy (at least for me) to forget about other arches or make wrong assumptions about them when modifying common code. Drivers could also benefit from something similar IMO, where common code has a shared group of maintainers, for example IOMMU should ideally have a mix of maintainers from the current implementations (Arm/Intel/AMD) plus again whatever common code maintainers we want to have. Roger.