> On 21 Jul 2021, at 11:00, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:46:15AM +0000, Jorgen Hansen wrote: >> >> >>> On 20 Jul 2021, at 12:39, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:29:01AM -0700, Jorgen Hansen wrote: >>>> Add maintainer info for the VMware VMCI driver. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> MAINTAINERS | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>>> index a61f4f3..7e7c6fa 100644 >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>>> @@ -19792,6 +19792,14 @@ L: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> S: Supported >>>> F: drivers/ptp/ptp_vmw.c >>>> >>>> +VMWARE VMCI DRIVER >>>> +M: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> +M: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> +M: "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Please do not use generic aliases as they provide no personal >>> responsibility. Just stick with real people. >> >> That makes sense. However, the pv-drivers list is used for keeping managers >> and people helping with testing in the loop. So would adding pv-drivers as a >> second L: entry be OK? > > Is it really a list? If not, then that would not make much sense. It is - with VMware subscribers only but anyone can post to it. If the intent of the L: entries is to allow folks to subscribe to relevant information, then it isn’t appropriate. All existing vmw driver maintainer entries have pv-drivers as an M: entry, so has there been a change in policy regarding this? The approach has been quite useful for us. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
