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