On 13/02/2025 13:53, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:09 AM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just realized I should've shared the link to the v2 - which may not
include all the recipients (because it no longer touches all the
subsystems - and the get_maintainer.pl probably reduced the list of
recipients). So, for anyone interested, here's the v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1738761899.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/
Well it touches (uses) the gpio subsystem so the GPIO maintainers
should have been on CC...
> > This is one of the shortcomings of get_maintainers.pl really (also what
b4 is using): it does not know that if you use some specific APIs from
some specific .h files then some specific maintainers need to be on
CC.
It's because there is no hard rule: <linux/slab.h> - who cares? It's not
like the memory management people want to look at every user of
kmalloc()... <linux/gpio/driver.h> - this is a different story because
it's possible to get the semantics wrong.
This is a tough one. There are also a few other subsystems (besides mm)
where maintainers can't stay on track for all the users. Also, AFAIR,
some maintainers don't want to be CC'd by users of their subsystems, but
only care the subsystem core changes. It's hard for an occasional
contributor to know who to CC - it's often safest to just go with the
get_maintainer.pl.
Still, I recognize the problem. I'm also trying to review users of some
of the APIs I've added to IIO, lib or regulator subsystems. What I use
is for this is lore + lei which fetch me mails with specific keywords
(APIs / API prefixes / headers which I'm interested in) from the mail
lists. Regular email filters could also do the job, but it'd required
subscribing the lists which tend to quickly fill ones mailboxes.
Anyways, I believe it'd be best if maintainers who want to review users
of their APIs did pick the mails with specific keywords from the lists.
Maintainers know what they want to pick, (occasional) patch senders can
only guess this ;)
That said, I looked at the patch in lore:
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
for patch 4/5!
Thanks! I do appreciate all the reviews as usual!
Yours,
-- Matti
