[PATCH v3 0/3] Update VMware maintainer entries

[PATCH v3 0/3] Update VMware maintainer entries

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

This series updates a few maintainer entries for VMware-maintained
subsystems and cleans up references to VMware's private mailing lists
to make it clear that they are effectively email-aliases to reach out
to reviewers.

Changes from v1->v3:
- Add Zack as the named maintainer for vmmouse driver
- Use R: to denote email-aliases for VMware reviewers

Regards,
Srivatsa

---

Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) (3):
      MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface
      MAINTAINERS: Add Zack as maintainer of vmmouse driver
      MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as email aliases


 MAINTAINERS |   30 +++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

[PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>

Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
to reflect this change.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---

 MAINTAINERS |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 0ad926ba362f..0329d67c5bcf 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -14188,7 +14188,7 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h
 
 PARAVIRT_OPS INTERFACE
 M:	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
-M:	Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
+M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
 M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
 L:	x86@kernel.org
@@ -20038,10 +20038,13 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c
 
 VMWARE HYPERVISOR INTERFACE
-M:	Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
+M:	Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
+M:	Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
 M:	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
 L:	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
+L:	x86@kernel.org
 S:	Supported
+T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/vmware
 F:	arch/x86/include/asm/vmware.h
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
 

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> 
> Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> to reflect this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:50:39 +0100
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  
> 
> Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(

Probably not needed, but does it hurt?  And who's normal?

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > 
> > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > to reflect this change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(

So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
maintainers. That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
just a cleanup.

Regards,
Srivatsa

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > 
> > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > > to reflect this change.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
> 
> So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
> older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
> maintainers.

That's not how stable releases work at all.

> That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
> patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
> just a cleanup.

Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.

So this would have no affect at all, sorry.  That's why I asked if you
all really realized what you were doing here :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > 
> > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > > > to reflect this change.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > 
> > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
> > 
> > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
> > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
> > maintainers.
> 
> That's not how stable releases work at all.
> 
> > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
> > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
> > just a cleanup.
> 
> Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
> you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
> properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
> kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
> snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.
> 

Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and
subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the
MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline.

When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was
for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable,
and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older
stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor
might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the
tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not
CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the
maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too.

Regards,
Srivatsa

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > > > > to reflect this change.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > 
> > > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
> > > 
> > > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
> > > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
> > > maintainers.
> > 
> > That's not how stable releases work at all.
> > 
> > > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
> > > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
> > > just a cleanup.
> > 
> > Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
> > you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
> > properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
> > kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
> > snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.
> > 
> 
> Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and
> subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the
> MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline.
> 
> When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was
> for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable,
> and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older
> stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor
> might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the
> tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not
> CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the
> maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too.

I always ask that the current maintainers of the code be cc:ed when
asking for commits to be backported to the stable tree, so I think this
is not something you need to worry about.  I don't want to have to deal
with hundreds of patches to try to keep the MAINTAINERS file "up to
date" for this very very rare event.

You can prove me wrong by looking at our email archives and see where I
have missed ever doing this in the past 18 years and what the frequency
of it is...

But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Sasha Levin]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
>> > > >
>> > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
>> > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
>> > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
>> > > > to reflect this change.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
>> > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
>> > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
>> > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> > >
>> > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
>> >
>> > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
>> > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
>> > maintainers.
>>
>> That's not how stable releases work at all.
>>
>> > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
>> > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
>> > just a cleanup.
>>
>> Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
>> you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
>> properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
>> kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
>> snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.
>>
>
>Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and
>subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the
>MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline.
>
>When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was
>for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable,
>and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older
>stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor
>might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the
>tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not
>CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the
>maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too.

If you look at cases like these, I can see an argument around bringing
it back to -stable. However, changes in the upstream MAINTAINERS file
aren't limited to just change in maintainers.

How would we handle addition of maintainers of a new code upstream? Or
removal of maintainers due to code deletion? Or code movement upstream
that isn't reflected in the stable tree (think a driver graduating from
staging).

It becomes a mess quite quickly and the easiest solution here is to just
use upstream's MAINTAINERS file.

Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
obvious.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:55:14AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > > > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > > > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > > > > > to reflect this change.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
> > > > 
> > > > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
> > > > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
> > > > maintainers.
> > > 
> > > That's not how stable releases work at all.
> > > 
> > > > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
> > > > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
> > > > just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
> > > you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
> > > properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
> > > kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
> > > snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and
> > subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the
> > MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline.
> > 
> > When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was
> > for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable,
> > and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older
> > stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor
> > might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the
> > tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not
> > CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the
> > maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too.
> 
> I always ask that the current maintainers of the code be cc:ed when
> asking for commits to be backported to the stable tree, so I think this
> is not something you need to worry about.  I don't want to have to deal
> with hundreds of patches to try to keep the MAINTAINERS file "up to
> date" for this very very rare event.
> 

Sounds good, thank you!

> You can prove me wrong by looking at our email archives and see where I
> have missed ever doing this in the past 18 years and what the frequency
> of it is...
>

I believe you :-)

> But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material.
>

I understand, and thank you for the clarification!

Regards,
Srivatsa

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
> > > > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in
> > > > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file
> > > > > > to reflect this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable?  That's not normal :(
> > > >
> > > > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for
> > > > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem
> > > > maintainers.
> > > 
> > > That's not how stable releases work at all.
> > > 
> > > > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two
> > > > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is
> > > > just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if
> > > you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be
> > > properly cc:ed.  We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older
> > > kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the
> > > snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and
> > subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the
> > MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline.
> > 
> > When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was
> > for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable,
> > and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older
> > stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor
> > might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the
> > tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not
> > CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the
> > maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too.
> 
> If you look at cases like these, I can see an argument around bringing
> it back to -stable. However, changes in the upstream MAINTAINERS file
> aren't limited to just change in maintainers.
> 
> How would we handle addition of maintainers of a new code upstream? Or
> removal of maintainers due to code deletion? Or code movement upstream
> that isn't reflected in the stable tree (think a driver graduating from
> staging).
> 

Good point!

> It becomes a mess quite quickly and the easiest solution here is to just
> use upstream's MAINTAINERS file.
> 

Agreed.

> Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
> obvious.
> 

I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can
modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning
or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is
invoked on an older stable kernel.

Regards,
Srivatsa

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
> > obvious.
> 
> I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can
> modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning
> or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is
> invoked on an older stable kernel.

I don't see how that's feasible.

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
> > > obvious.
> > 
> > I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can
> > modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning
> > or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is
> > invoked on an older stable kernel.
> 
> I don't see how that's feasible.
> 

Not that I'm pushing for this change, but isn't it straight-forward to
distinguish upstream and stable kernel releases based on their
versioning schemes? The SUBLEVEL in the Makefile is always 0 for
upstream, and positive for stable versions (ignoring ancient kernels
like v2.6.32, of course). Since stable kernels are behind mainline by
definition, anytime the get_maintainer.pl script is invoked on a
kernel with a positive SUBLEVEL value, we can print out the said
warning/reminder (if it is considered useful).

Regards,
Srivatsa

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 10:18 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it
> > > > obvious.
> > > 
> > > I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can
> > > modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning
> > > or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is
> > > invoked on an older stable kernel.
> > 
> > I don't see how that's feasible.
> > 
> 
> Not that I'm pushing for this change, but isn't it straight-forward to
> distinguish upstream and stable kernel releases based on their
> versioning schemes? The SUBLEVEL in the Makefile is always 0 for
> upstream, and positive for stable versions (ignoring ancient kernels
> like v2.6.32, of course). Since stable kernels are behind mainline by
> definition, anytime the get_maintainer.pl script is invoked on a
> kernel with a positive SUBLEVEL value, we can print out the said
> warning/reminder (if it is considered useful).

checkpatch doesn't work on trees, it works on patches.