Hi Jan,
On 22/05/2019 11:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.05.19 at 11:27, julien.grall@arm.com wrote:
On 22/05/2019 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.05.19 at 23:25, Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com wrote:
MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ xen/arch/arm/Kconfig | 7 +++ xen/arch/arm/Makefile | 1 + xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 18 ++++++ xen/arch/arm/setup.c | 2 + xen/arch/arm/tee/Makefile | 1 + xen/arch/arm/tee/tee.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ xen/arch/arm/vsmc.c | 5 ++ xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S | 7 +++ xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 1 + xen/include/asm-arm/tee/tee.h | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ xen/include/public/arch-arm.h | 3 + 12 files changed, 253 insertions(+) create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/tee/Makefile create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/tee/tee.c create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-arm/tee/tee.h
I don't think I'm asking this for the first time: Why am I being Cc-ed here? It's all Arm code that gets changed, and the MAINTAINERS addition alone imo doesn't warrant widening the Cc list.
A lot of users uses the scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to get the list of
maintainers to CCed. Both of them output "THE REST" because of the file MAINTAINERS is modified.
I don't think it is sensible to expect users to know when to strip the list...
Hmm, well, I see your point, but I think applying some common sense still can be expected. It's also not sensible for unrelated people to get Cc-ed. I think anyone knowing enough to modify MAINTAINERS can be expected to know whom to Cc.
I disagree here, someone in "THE REST" may have an opinion in adding Volodymyr as a maintainer (this is only example).
This is a bit similar to when you send a patch to add a 3 lines timer helper in a common header but it is only used by x86. Even if I will not necessary answer on the patch because it does not impact Arm directly, I will still have a quick look to see if it makes sense.
Anyway, you can't expect the contributor to guess your will on MAINTAINERS. You should update the documentation/script if this is the expectation you have.
Cheers,