On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:55:14AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > 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. > Sounds good, thank you! > 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... > I believe you :-) > But for now, no, this is not stable kernel material. > I understand, and thank you for the clarification! Regards, Srivatsa
