[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] MAINTAINERS: Improve section headlines
From: |
Stafford Horne |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] MAINTAINERS: Improve section headlines |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 19:33:49 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) |
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/31/19 5:36 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 05:08:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> When scripts/get_maintainer.pl reports something like
> >>
> >> John Doe <address@hidden> (maintainer:Overall)
> >>
> >> the user is left to wonder *which* of our three "Overall" sections
> >> applies. We have three, one each under "Guest CPU cores (TCG)",
> >> "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)", and "Overall usermode emulation".
> >>
> >> Rename sections under
> >>
> >> * "Guest CPU cores (TCG)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (TCG)"
> >>
> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (KVM)"
> >>
> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (Xen)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (Xen)"
> >>
> >> * "Architecture support" from "FOO" to "FOO general architecture
> >> support"
> >>
> >> * "Tiny Code Generator (TCG)" from "FOO target" to "FOO TCG target"
> >>
> >> While there,
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >> MAINTAINERS | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> -OpenRISC
> >> +OpenRISC CPU cores (TCG)
> >> M: Stafford Horne <address@hidden>
> >> S: Odd Fixes
> >> F: target/openrisc/
> >> F: hw/openrisc/
> >> F: tests/tcg/openrisc/
> >>
> >
> > As directories listed there I look over both target/ (TCG?) and hw/.
> > Would it be better to be 'OpenRISC general architecture'?
>
> There is a historical separation between target/ and hw/ because they
> cover different concepts, and have different maintainers/reviewers.
>
> - target/$arch/ is for TCG/KVM
> - hw/ is for machines and their devices
> (some devices are reused by multiple archs)
>
> Although the separation is not always clear (some devices are tied to an
> architecture, some architecture instruction directly access devices) I'd
> prefer we keep 2 distincts MAINTAINERS sections (keeping you maintainer
> of both). This will ease developper with specific background/interests
> to volunteer to a particular section.
Hello,
Thanks for the explaination. I think it makes sense to have 2 different
maintainer sections. In that case should this patch be amended to move the
'F: hw/openrisc/' etc out to a different section with the different header?
-Stafford