Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM RISC-V Support

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Radim K <rkrcmar@redhat.com>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>,
	Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM RISC-V Support
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:37:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2ea0c656-bd7e-ae79-1f8e-6b60374ccc6e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908081824500.21111@viisi.sifive.com>

On 09/08/19 03:35, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
>> However, for Linux releases after 5.4 I would rather get pull requests 
>> for arch/riscv/kvm from Anup and Atish without involving the RISC-V 
>> tree.  Of course, they or I will ask for your ack, or for a topic 
>> branch, on the occasion that something touches files outside their 
>> maintainership area.  This is how things are already being handled for 
>> ARM, POWER and s390 and it allows me to handle conflicts in common KVM 
>> files before they reach Linus; these are more common than conflicts in 
>> arch files. If you have further questions on git and maintenance 
>> workflows, just ask!
> 
> In principle, that's fine with me, as long as the arch/riscv maintainers 
> and mailing lists are kept in the loop.  We already do something similar 
> to this for the RISC-V BPF JIT.  However, I'd like this to be explicitly 
> documented in the MAINTAINERS file, as it is for BPF.  It looks like it 
> isn't for ARM, POWER, or S390, either looking at MAINTAINERS or 
> spot-checking scripts/get_maintainer.pl:
> 
> $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c 
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
> Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
> linux-s390@vger.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
> $
> 
> Would you be willing to send a MAINTAINERS patch to formalize this 
> practice?

Ah, I see, in the MAINTAINERS entry

KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR RISC-V (KVM/riscv)
M:	Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>
R:	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
L:	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
T:	git git://github.com/avpatel/linux.git
S:	Maintained
F:	arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/kvm*
F:	arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm*
F:	arch/riscv/kvm/

the L here should be kvm@vger.kernel.org.  arch/riscv/kvm/ files would
still match RISC-V ARCHITECTURE and therefore
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org would be CCed.

Unlike other subsystems, for KVM I ask the submaintainers to include the
patches in their pull requests, which is why you saw no kvm@vger entry
for KVM/s390.  However, it's probably a good idea to add it and do the
same for RISC-V.

Is that what you meant?

Paolo

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv