On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 10:18 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 14:39 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:16:53PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > Maybe we should just remove MAINTAINERS from stable trees to make it > > > > obvious. > > > > > > I don't think we should go quite that far. Instead, perhaps we can > > > modify get_maintainer.pl (if needed) such that it prints out a warning > > > or reminder to consult the upstream MAINTAINERS file if the script is > > > invoked on an older stable kernel. > > > > I don't see how that's feasible. > > > > Not that I'm pushing for this change, but isn't it straight-forward to > distinguish upstream and stable kernel releases based on their > versioning schemes? The SUBLEVEL in the Makefile is always 0 for > upstream, and positive for stable versions (ignoring ancient kernels > like v2.6.32, of course). Since stable kernels are behind mainline by > definition, anytime the get_maintainer.pl script is invoked on a > kernel with a positive SUBLEVEL value, we can print out the said > warning/reminder (if it is considered useful). checkpatch doesn't work on trees, it works on patches.
