Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221024113445.1022147-1-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <Y1mlJqKdFtlgG3jR@google.com> <DS0PR11MB63731F2B467D4084F5C8D9B5DC339@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y1qnWFzekT27rYka@google.com> <CALzav=c4-FWVrWQebuYs--vbgnyPjEwZxfjSS1aMSRL3JMbWYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1rNm0E6/I5y6K2a@google.com> <20221028124106.oze32j2lkq5ykifj@kamzik>
 <Y1v6AEInngzRxSJ+@google.com> <CALzav=chUT9v4wYVVy9dSLcevhADxONaf9iCMOWQ_vUOwpkV9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2lMLfjiRAF8ZrNT@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y2lMLfjiRAF8ZrNT@google.com>
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:05:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CALzav=feThT9Gng8hJy54VDNO=m=ywpzUKyKjjLmj5ZFWUBJuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/18] KVM selftests code consolidation and cleanup
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
        "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "vipinsh@google.com" <vipinsh@google.com>,
        "ajones@ventanamicro.com" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:19 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > Anyways, if someone wants to pursue this, these ideas and the "requirement" should
> > > be run by the checkpatch maintainers.  They have far more experience and authority
> > > in this area, and I suspect we aren't the first people to want checkpatch to get
> > > involved in enforcing shortlog scope.
> >
> > Documenting would at least be an improvement over what we have today
> > since it would eliminate the need to re-explain the preferred rules
> > every time. We can just point to the documentation when reviewing
> > patches.
>
> Agreed.  And there are many other things I want to formalize for KVM x86, e.g.
> testing expectations, health requirements for the various branches, what each
> branch is used for etc...
>
> If you want to send a patch for the shortlogs thing, maybe create
>
>   Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst
>
> and link it into Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst?

Can do. I'll try to take a look later this week or next week.