On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 07:49:37PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote: > On 2025-10-03 05:20, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 10:09:31AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 07:42:38PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote: > > > > @@ -601,7 +618,8 @@ M: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> > > > > S: Supported > > > > L: [email protected] > > > > F: xen/arch/x86/ > > > > -F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ > > > > +X: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/ > > > > +X: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c > > > > > > Would it be possible to not exclude the SVM related code here, and > > > avoid having to duplicate the x86 maintainers on the AMD entries? > > > > > > Or the parsing of the file doesn't deal with multiple entries possibly > > > covering the same files? > > > > ./get_maintainer.pl can deal with a file been covered by multiple > > entries, there's multiple example of that already, (e.g. many subsection > > are also covered by TOOLSTACK). > > > > The exclusion is likely unnecessary, and ./get_maintainer.pl will just > > get the information (email, ...) from every sections that a file match. > > But the duplication is necessary due to the "The meaning of nesting" > > described in the MAINTAINERS file. > > Roger, are you okay with this approach? > > I considered adding myself to the top level X86 entry but it covers so much. > I mainly care about one cpu vendor ;) and I'm not interested in PV or > shadow. So I went with adding myself to the specific subset.
Indeed. Jan reported a sorting issue, you can add my: Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> To the correctly sorted patch. Thanks, Roger.
