MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

[Lukas Bulwahn]

Hi David,

with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon 
co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 
MAINTAINERS complains:

WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
#17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982:
+F:	include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h
+F:	include/linux/balloon_compaction.h

This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you 
would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.

It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in 
MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.


Best regards,

Lukas

Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

[David Hildenbrand]

On 12.05.20 07:21, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon 
> co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 
> MAINTAINERS complains:
> 
> WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
> #17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982:
> +F:	include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h
> +F:	include/linux/balloon_compaction.h
> 
> This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you 
> would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.
> 
> It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in 
> MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.

Thanks for the notification Lukas,

b962ee8622d0 ("checkpatch: additional MAINTAINER section entry ordering
checks") is not in Linus' tree yet AFAIKS.

I can see that 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all
entries") is upstream. I do wonder if we should just do another batch
update after the checkpatch patch is upstream instead, I guess more will
pile up?

@mst, joe, what do you prefer?

1. I can resend the original patch.
2. Lukas can send a fixup that we might want to squash.
3. We wait until the checkpatch change goes upstream and to a final
batch update.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 08:38 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.05.20 07:21, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon 
> > co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 
> > MAINTAINERS complains:
> > 
> > WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
> > #17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982:
> > +F:	include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h
> > +F:	include/linux/balloon_compaction.h
> > 
> > This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you 
> > would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.
> > 
> > It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in 
> > MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.
> 
> Thanks for the notification Lukas,
> 
> b962ee8622d0 ("checkpatch: additional MAINTAINER section entry ordering
> checks") is not in Linus' tree yet AFAIKS.
> 
> I can see that 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all
> entries") is upstream. I do wonder if we should just do another batch
> update after the checkpatch patch is upstream instead, I guess more will
> pile up?
> 
> @mst, joe, what do you prefer?
> 
> 1. I can resend the original patch.
> 2. Lukas can send a fixup that we might want to squash.
> 3. We wait until the checkpatch change goes upstream and to a final
> batch update.

A fixup patch would work.

I think if Linus every once in awhile just before an -rc1 runs
scripts/parse-maintainers like:

commit 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all entries")

then these sorts of individual patches would not matter much.

This first time the script was run, I think there was just 1 patch
conflict from -next to Linus' tree, and that scripted change was
fairly large.

As the changes will generally be smaller in the future, it's unlikely
there will be a significant number of conflicts.

Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in VIRTIO BALLOON

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:23:45AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 08:38 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 12.05.20 07:21, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > > 
> > > with your commit 6d6b93b9afd8 ("MAINTAINERS: Add myself as virtio-balloon 
> > > co-maintainer"), visible on next-20200508, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 
> > > MAINTAINERS complains:
> > > 
> > > WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
> > > #17982: FILE: MAINTAINERS:17982:
> > > +F:	include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h
> > > +F:	include/linux/balloon_compaction.h
> > > 
> > > This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you 
> > > would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.
> > > 
> > > It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in 
> > > MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.
> > 
> > Thanks for the notification Lukas,
> > 
> > b962ee8622d0 ("checkpatch: additional MAINTAINER section entry ordering
> > checks") is not in Linus' tree yet AFAIKS.
> > 
> > I can see that 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all
> > entries") is upstream. I do wonder if we should just do another batch
> > update after the checkpatch patch is upstream instead, I guess more will
> > pile up?
> > 
> > @mst, joe, what do you prefer?
> > 
> > 1. I can resend the original patch.
> > 2. Lukas can send a fixup that we might want to squash.
> > 3. We wait until the checkpatch change goes upstream and to a final
> > batch update.
> 
> A fixup patch would work.
> 
> I think if Linus every once in awhile just before an -rc1 runs
> scripts/parse-maintainers like:
> 
> commit 3b50142d8528 ("MAINTAINERS: sort field names for all entries")
> 
> then these sorts of individual patches would not matter much.
> 
> This first time the script was run, I think there was just 1 patch
> conflict from -next to Linus' tree, and that scripted change was
> fairly large.
> 
> As the changes will generally be smaller in the future, it's unlikely
> there will be a significant number of conflicts.
> 


ok so just send a fixup patch pls.