From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 16:23:45 +0000 Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON Message-Id: <80146d5713f8579a92b4da1e2b7d7626999dd9be.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Hildenbrand , Lukas Bulwahn Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 08:38 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 12.05.20 07:21, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon > > co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f > > MAINTAINERS complains: > > > > WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order > > #17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982: > > +F: include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h > > +F: include/linux/balloon_compaction.h > > > > This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you > > would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know. > > > > It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in > > MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time. > > Thanks for the notification Lukas, > > b962ee8622d0 ("checkpatch: additional MAINTAINER section entry ordering > checks") is not in Linus' tree yet AFAIKS. > > I can see that 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all > entries") is upstream. I do wonder if we should just do another batch > update after the checkpatch patch is upstream instead, I guess more will > pile up? > > @mst, joe, what do you prefer? > > 1. I can resend the original patch. > 2. Lukas can send a fixup that we might want to squash. > 3. We wait until the checkpatch change goes upstream and to a final > batch update. A fixup patch would work. I think if Linus every once in awhile just before an -rc1 runs scripts/parse-maintainers like: commit 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all entries") then these sorts of individual patches would not matter much. This first time the script was run, I think there was just 1 patch conflict from -next to Linus' tree, and that scripted change was fairly large. As the changes will generally be smaller in the future, it's unlikely there will be a significant number of conflicts.