Virtualization - Nov 2021 - Which tree for paravirt related patches?

On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 10:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

CC+ x86, peterz
> 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

Hi Juergen, Thomas,

On 11/4/21 2:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 10:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> CC+ x86, peterz
> 
>> 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.
>>
On a related note, I'll be stepping in soon to assist (in place of
Deep) as a co-maintainer of the PARAVIRT_OPS interface. I had the same
query about which tree would be best for patches to the paravirt-ops
code, so I'm glad to see that it got clarified on this thread.

I'll also be taking over the maintainership of the VMware hypervisor
interface. Looking at the git logs, I believe those patches have
also been handled via the tip tree; so would it be okay to add the
x86 ML and the tip tree to the VMware hypervisor interface entry too
in the MAINTAINERS file?

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Srivatsa