On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:40:02AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:39:16AM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:08:16PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Deep has decided to transfer maintainership of the VMware hypervisor > > > > > interface to Srivatsa, and the joint-maintainership of paravirt ops in > > > > > the Linux kernel to Srivatsa and Alexey. Update the MAINTAINERS file > > > > > to reflect this change. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Deep Shah <sdeep@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > Why are MAINTAINERS updates needed for stable? That's not normal :( > > > > > > So that people posting bug-fixes / backports to these subsystems for > > > older kernels (stable and LTS releases) will CC the new subsystem > > > maintainers. > > > > That's not how stable releases work at all. > > > > > That's why I added CC stable tag only to the first two > > > patches which add/replace maintainers and not the third patch which is > > > just a cleanup. > > > > Patches for stable kernels need to go into Linus's tree first, and if > > you have the MAINTAINERS file updated properly there, then you will be > > properly cc:ed. We do not look at the MAINTAINERS file for the older > > kernel when sending patches out, it's totally ignored as that was the > > snapshot at a point in time, which is usually no longer the true state. > > > > Sure, but that's the case for patches that get mainlined (and > subsequently backported to -stable) /after/ this update to the > MAINTAINERS file gets merged into mainline. > > When adding the CC stable tag, the case I was trying to address was > for patches that are already in mainline but weren't CC'ed to stable, > and at some later point, somebody decides to backport them to older > stable kernels. In that case, there is a chance that the contributor > might run ./get_maintainer.pl against the stable tree (as that's the > tree they are backporting the upstream commit against) and end up not > CC'ing the new maintainers. So, I thought it would be good to keep the > maintainer info updated in the older stable kernels too. I always ask that the current maintainers of the code be cc:ed when asking for commits to be backported to the stable tree, so I think this is not something you need to worry about. I don't want to have to deal with hundreds of patches to try to keep the MAINTAINERS file "up to date" for this very very rare event. You can prove me wrong by looking at our email archives and see where I have missed ever doing this in the past 18 years and what the frequency of it is... But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
