On 5/22/23 05:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
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 ...
I was torn between matching lines with `xsm_` and matching lines with
the first non-whitespace character being a `+` and having `xsm_`. In the
end, I opted for the former because the concern is not just a change to
the line with the XSM hook, but the changing context around the hook. As
a result, yes, there will be false positives as well as the potentially
false negatives as a relevant context change may happen far enough
outside the diff scope. Regardless, the end result will be an increased
awareness at the cost of some noise. INHO I find this to be a better
situation than the current place we are at today.
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.
s
Apologies, I didn't catch expandtab was on, will resubmit with hard tabs
in place.
v/r,
dps
