Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM RISC-V Support

[Anup Patel]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:07 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/08/19 03:35, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> However, for Linux releases after 5.4 I would rather get pull requests
> >> for arch/riscv/kvm from Anup and Atish without involving the RISC-V
> >> tree.  Of course, they or I will ask for your ack, or for a topic
> >> branch, on the occasion that something touches files outside their
> >> maintainership area.  This is how things are already being handled for
> >> ARM, POWER and s390 and it allows me to handle conflicts in common KVM
> >> files before they reach Linus; these are more common than conflicts in
> >> arch files. If you have further questions on git and maintenance
> >> workflows, just ask!
> >
> > In principle, that's fine with me, as long as the arch/riscv maintainers
> > and mailing lists are kept in the loop.  We already do something similar
> > to this for the RISC-V BPF JIT.  However, I'd like this to be explicitly
> > documented in the MAINTAINERS file, as it is for BPF.  It looks like it
> > isn't for ARM, POWER, or S390, either looking at MAINTAINERS or
> > spot-checking scripts/get_maintainer.pl:
> >
> > $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> > David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:S390)
> > Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:S390)
> > linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390))
> > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
> > $
> >
> > Would you be willing to send a MAINTAINERS patch to formalize this
> > practice?
>
> Ah, I see, in the MAINTAINERS entry
>
> KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR RISC-V (KVM/riscv)
> M:      Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxx>
> R:      Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx>
> L:      linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> T:      git git://github.com/avpatel/linux.git
> S:      Maintained
> F:      arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/kvm*
> F:      arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm*
> F:      arch/riscv/kvm/
>
> the L here should be kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  arch/riscv/kvm/ files would
> still match RISC-V ARCHITECTURE and therefore
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx would be CCed.

In addition to above mentioned lists, we insist of having a separate
KVM RISC-V list which can be CCed for non-kernel patches for projects
such as QEMU, KVMTOOL, and Libvirt. This KVM RISC-V list can also
be used for general queries related to KVM RISCV.

>
> Unlike other subsystems, for KVM I ask the submaintainers to include the
> patches in their pull requests, which is why you saw no kvm@vger entry
> for KVM/s390.  However, it's probably a good idea to add it and do the
> same for RISC-V.

For KVM RISC-V, we will always CC both kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Regards,
Anup