A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS: there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip tree, and I think this is fine. X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be noticed by you and can be handled accordingly. An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling. And please, could you take a look at: https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/b8192e8a-13ef-6ac6-6364-8ba58992cd1d at suse.com/ This patch was the one making me notice the problem. Juergen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 3091 bytes Desc: OpenPGP public key URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20211104/232eee2a/attachment-0001.bin> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20211104/232eee2a/attachment-0001.sig>
Juergen, On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 06:53, Juergen Gross wrote:> A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is > highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS: > there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those > patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip > tree, and I think this is fine. > > X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry > to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be > noticed by you and can be handled accordingly.Sure.> An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen > tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched > and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling.Fair enough.> And please, could you take a look at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/b8192e8a-13ef-6ac6-6364-8ba58992cd1d at suse.com/ > > This patch was the one making me notice the problem.Will do. Thanks, Thomas