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

From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	jgross@suse.com, x86@kernel.org, pv-drivers@vmware.com,
	Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>,
	Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, keerthanak@vmware.com,
	srivatsab@vmware.com, anishs@vmware.com, vithampi@vmware.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, joe@perches.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for paravirt ops and VMware hypervisor interface
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:16:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YY6hhWtvh+OvOqAl@sashalap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211111194002.GA8739@csail.mit.edu>

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