On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:49:54PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > +New driver submissions are therefore requested to have approval via > +Sign-off for any interactions with parent drivers. Additionally, Acked-by/etc. > +drivers should make an attempt to provide sufficient documentation > +for reviewers to understand the device specific extensions, for > +example in the case of migration data, how is the device state > +composed and consumed, which portions are not otherwise available to > +the user via vfio-pci, what safeguards exist to validate the data, > +etc. To that extent, authors should additionally expect to require > +reviews from at least one of the listed reviewers, in addition to the > +overall vfio maintainer. > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 4322b5321891..4f7d26f9aac6 100644 > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -20314,6 +20314,13 @@ F: drivers/vfio/mdev/ > F: include/linux/mdev.h > F: samples/vfio-mdev/ > > +VFIO PCI VENDOR DRIVERS > +R: Your Name <your.name@xxxxxxxx> > +L: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > +S: Maintained > +P: Documentation/vfio/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst > +F: drivers/vfio/pci/*/ > + > VFIO PLATFORM DRIVER > M: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> > L: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Ideally we'd have at least Yishai, Shameer, Jason, and yourself listed > as reviewers (Connie and I are included via the higher level entry). > Thoughts from anyone? Volunteers for reviewers if we want to press > forward with this as formal acceptance criteria? Thanks, I've not seen such formalism before in the kernel, but seems like it might be an interesting experiment. You can add my name Jason
