Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
cc:     Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Radim K <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM RISC-V Support
In-Reply-To: <df0638d9-e2f4-30f5-5400-9078bf9d1f99@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908081824500.21111@viisi.sifive.com>
References: <20190807122726.81544-1-anup.patel@wdc.com> <4a991aa3-154a-40b2-a37d-9ee4a4c7a2ca@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908071606560.13971@viisi.sifive.com> <df0638d9-e2f4-30f5-5400-9078bf9d1f99@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> However, for Linux releases after 5.4 I would rather get pull requests 
> for arch/riscv/kvm from Anup and Atish without involving the RISC-V 
> tree.  Of course, they or I will ask for your ack, or for a topic 
> branch, on the occasion that something touches files outside their 
> maintainership area.  This is how things are already being handled for 
> ARM, POWER and s390 and it allows me to handle conflicts in common KVM 
> files before they reach Linus; these are more common than conflicts in 
> arch files. If you have further questions on git and maintenance 
> workflows, just ask!

In principle, that's fine with me, as long as the arch/riscv maintainers 
and mailing lists are kept in the loop.  We already do something similar 
to this for the RISC-V BPF JIT.  However, I'd like this to be explicitly 
documented in the MAINTAINERS file, as it is for BPF.  It looks like it 
isn't for ARM, POWER, or S390, either looking at MAINTAINERS or 
spot-checking scripts/get_maintainer.pl:

$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c 
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> (supporter:S390)
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
$

Would you be willing to send a MAINTAINERS patch to formalize this 
practice?


- Paul