From: Juergen Gross via Virtualization <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 05:53:38
A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is
highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS:
there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those
patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip
tree, and I think this is fine.
X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry
to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be
noticed by you and can be handled accordingly.
An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen
tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched
and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling.
And please, could you take a look at:
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/b8192e8a-13ef-6ac6-6364-8ba58992cd1d@suse.com/
This patch was the one making me notice the problem.
Juergen
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 09:17:10
Juergen,
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 06:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is
highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS:
there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those
patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip
tree, and I think this is fine.
X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry
to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be
noticed by you and can be handled accordingly.
Sure.
An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen
tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched
and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling.
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 09:18:33
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 10:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
CC+ x86, peterz
Juergen,
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 06:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
quoted
A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is
highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS:
there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those
patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip
tree, and I think this is fine.
X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry
to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be
noticed by you and can be handled accordingly.
Sure.
quoted
An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen
tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched
and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling.
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 19:31:09
Hi Juergen, Thomas,
On 11/4/21 2:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 10:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
CC+ x86, peterz
quoted
Juergen,
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 06:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
quoted
A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is
highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS:
there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those
patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip
tree, and I think this is fine.
X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry
to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be
noticed by you and can be handled accordingly.
Sure.
On a related note, I'll be stepping in soon to assist (in place of
Deep) as a co-maintainer of the PARAVIRT_OPS interface. I had the same
query about which tree would be best for patches to the paravirt-ops
code, so I'm glad to see that it got clarified on this thread.
I'll also be taking over the maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
interface. Looking at the git logs, I believe those patches have
also been handled via the tip tree; so would it be okay to add the
x86 ML and the tip tree to the VMware hypervisor interface entry too
in the MAINTAINERS file?
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Srivatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 20:12:00
Srivatsa,
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 12:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On a related note, I'll be stepping in soon to assist (in place of
Deep) as a co-maintainer of the PARAVIRT_OPS interface. I had the same
query about which tree would be best for patches to the paravirt-ops
code, so I'm glad to see that it got clarified on this thread.
Welcome to the club.
I'll also be taking over the maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
interface. Looking at the git logs, I believe those patches have
also been handled via the tip tree; so would it be okay to add the
x86 ML and the tip tree to the VMware hypervisor interface entry too
in the MAINTAINERS file?
We've routed them through tip, yes. So yes, that's fine to have a
separate entry in the maintainers file which has you and x86@kernel.org
plus the tip tree mentioned.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <hidden> Date: 2021-11-04 20:17:32
Hi Thomas,
On 11/4/21 1:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Srivatsa,
On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 12:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
quoted
On a related note, I'll be stepping in soon to assist (in place of
Deep) as a co-maintainer of the PARAVIRT_OPS interface. I had the same
query about which tree would be best for patches to the paravirt-ops
code, so I'm glad to see that it got clarified on this thread.
Welcome to the club.
Thank you! :-)
quoted
I'll also be taking over the maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
interface. Looking at the git logs, I believe those patches have
also been handled via the tip tree; so would it be okay to add the
x86 ML and the tip tree to the VMware hypervisor interface entry too
in the MAINTAINERS file?
We've routed them through tip, yes. So yes, that's fine to have a
separate entry in the maintainers file which has you and x86@kernel.org
plus the tip tree mentioned.