From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43CEC433F5 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF27D60FE3 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235411AbhKLRTs (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:19:48 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:34170 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232231AbhKLRTp (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:19:45 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A80AE60F42; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:16:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1636737414; bh=PVOU7h7x2J81mYfbh6RtfTve7gE6Gjqhf3K9wAhf7Jo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=O1y2Ur78mx4AzpCat67RC16NIGwzN1tnJeNujdcGlgATwiRoARBNhWkiNU/VwgUTz DCdahG3jP944oBcXIFAzoygxFOhmMs/zByO4pG/BjW4YtAYv29evoLRUObjdXIvng2 chpiztoSYtEqajLwfPMZzlDp9SqeW4n2e54Yf7sQyaYy+YG6xUtNyV2w5d2zMX/g0d VpgdGKfq0bw1Qc0Yw6soGLmiB1GOe99WrQbNW/ew5QMg5lXBO0NOvpjRKktxRIrqQT +AdH/kbH5uH2VmXS+pHW7CKUgEKXqWdeXbCwO6sbd6LkcBSOAwEkb/z9vFVKYq/0wL i0DGwWZ4EH44w== Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:16:53 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Cc: Greg KH , jgross@suse.com, x86@kernel.org, pv-drivers@vmware.com, Alexey Makhalov , Deep Shah , 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 Message-ID: References: <163657479269.84207.13658789048079672839.stgit@srivatsa-dev> <163657487268.84207.5604596767569015608.stgit@srivatsa-dev> <20211111153916.GA7966@csail.mit.edu> <20211111194002.GA8739@csail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211111194002.GA8739@csail.mit.edu> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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) >> > > > >> > > > 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) >> > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov >> > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah >> > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross >> > > > 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