Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:32:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: josh@joshtriplett.org
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        sbw@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: Add designated reviewers for RCU
Message-ID: <20140711083223.GD20603@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1404853264.932.52.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140708215229.GA4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1404857116.932.68.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140708222557.GF4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1404878965.932.87.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140709111427.GL4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1404912202.932.116.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140710093900.GV3935@laptop>
 <1404986412.8839.23.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140710231623.GA23176@cloud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140710231623.GA23176@cloud>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:16:23PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:00:12AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 11:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:23:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > SCHEDULER:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > R:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> (kernel/sched/rt.c)
> > > > > R:   Juri Lelli <jundri.lelli@gmail.com>    (kernel/sched/deadline.c)
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe a better syntax might be something like:
> > > > R:	Steven Rostedt
> > > > 	F:	kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > > 
> > > > where optional F:/X: lines override the default
> > > > assumption of all F:/X: from the section.
> > > 
> > > Would RF: make sense? Instead of the indenting.
> > 
> > Maybe.
> > 
> > As a preface:
> > 
> > I doubt the need for associating a subset of the files
> > patterns for a subsystem with a particular reviewer.
> > 
> > If a reviewer is interested enough in a subsystem to
> > volunteer to read patches then that reviewer likely won't
> > be overburdened by getting a few more emailed patches
> > that may be outside a scope of interest.
> 
> I agree.  And if a subset of files needs a separate set of maintainers
> or reviewers, it doesn't seem excessive to split it into a separate
> MAINTAINERS entry.  For instance, if you want kernel/sched/rt.c to have
> an additional set of maintainers/reviewers, just add a MAINTAINERS entry
> for "SCHEDULER - REALTIME" with an appropriate "F:" line.

Ideally I'd want semantic boundaries, but given this all needs to be
robot parsed that's going to be a massive pain.

I guess I'm just not going to use it then. Too much hassle.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/