On 19.05.2023 13:48, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > XSM is a subsystem where it is equally important of how and where its hooks > are > called as is the implementation of the hooks. The people best suited for > evaluating the how and where are the XSM maintainers and reviewers. This > creates a challenge as the hooks are used throughout the hypervisor for which > the XSM maintainers and reviewers are not, and should not be, a reviewer for > each of these subsystems in the MAINTAINERS file. Though the MAINTAINERS file > does support the use of regex matches, 'K' identifier, that are applied to > both > the commit message and the commit delta. Adding the 'K' identifier will > declare > that any patch relating to XSM require the input from the XSM maintainers and > reviewers. For those that use the get_maintianers script, the 'K' identifier > will automatically add the XSM maintainers and reviewers.
With, aiui, a fair chance of false positives when e.g. XSM hook invocations are only in patch context. Much like ... > Any one not using > get_maintainers, it will be their responsibility to ensure that if their work > touches and XSM hook, to ensure the XSM maintainers and reviewers are copied. ... manual intervention is needed in the case of not using the script, I think people should also be at least asked to see about avoiding stray Cc-s in that case. Unless of course I'm misreading get_maintainers.pl (my Perl isn't really great) or the script would be adjusted to only look at added/ removed lines (albeit even that would leave a certain risk of false positives). > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ F: tools/flask/ > F: xen/include/xsm/ > F: xen/xsm/ > F: docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt > +K: xsm_.* > +K: \b(xsm|XSM)\b Nit: Please make padding match that of adjacent lines. Jan
