Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] MAINTAINERS: Improve section headlines

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 5/31/19 5:36 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 05:08:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> When scripts/get_maintainer.pl reports something like
>> >>
>> >>     John Doe <jdoe@example.org> (maintainer:Overall)
>> >>
>> >> the user is left to wonder *which* of our three "Overall" sections
>> >> applies.  We have three, one each under "Guest CPU cores (TCG)",
>> >> "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)", and "Overall usermode emulation".
>> >>
>> >> Rename sections under
>> >>
>> >> * "Guest CPU cores (TCG)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (TCG)"
>> >>
>> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (KVM)"
>> >>
>> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (Xen)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (Xen)"
>> >>
>> >> * "Architecture support" from "FOO" to "FOO general architecture
>> >>   support"
>> >>
>> >> * "Tiny Code Generator (TCG)" from "FOO target" to "FOO TCG target"
>> >>
>> >> While there,
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  MAINTAINERS | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>> >>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > ... 
>> > 
>> >> -OpenRISC
>> >> +OpenRISC CPU cores (TCG)
>> >>  M: Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
>> >>  S: Odd Fixes
>> >>  F: target/openrisc/
>> >>  F: hw/openrisc/
>> >>  F: tests/tcg/openrisc/
>> >>  
>> > 
>> > As directories listed there I look over both target/ (TCG?) and hw/.
>> > Would it be better to be 'OpenRISC general architecture'?
>> 
>> There is a historical separation between target/ and hw/ because they
>> cover different concepts, and have different maintainers/reviewers.
>> 
>> - target/$arch/ is for TCG/KVM
>> - hw/ is for machines and their devices
>>   (some devices are reused by multiple archs)
>> 
>> Although the separation is not always clear (some devices are tied to an
>> architecture, some architecture instruction directly access devices) I'd
>> prefer we keep 2 distincts MAINTAINERS sections (keeping you maintainer
>> of both). This will ease developper with specific background/interests
>> to volunteer to a particular section.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the explaination.  I think it makes sense to have 2 different
> maintainer sections.  In that case should this patch be amended to move the
> 'F: hw/openrisc/' etc out to a different section with the different header?

This patch merely improves headlines.  Splitting up the OpenRISC section
above should be separate.  Care to send the patch?