Re: [PATCH v2] get_maintainer: add KUnit maintainers for KUnit test files

[Thomas Weißschuh]

On 2026-03-01 12:17:17+0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> Il giorno dom 1 mar 2026 alle ore 03:36 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ha scritto:
> >
> > On Sun, 2026-03-01 at 02:11 +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > ```
> > > KUnit test files are scattered across the tree and don't always match
> > > the F: patterns in the KERNEL UNIT TESTING FRAMEWORK MAINTAINERS entry.
> > > Add the KUnit maintainers automatically when the file path matches
> > > common KUnit naming conventions: _kunit.c, -kunit.c, _kunit_test.c,
> > > and -kunit-tests.c.
> >
> > nack.  There's no need to modify get_maintainer.
> >
> > Use F: patterns instead.
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 96e97d25e1c2..9796e184b9d5 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -13956,6 +13956,11 @@ F:     rust/kernel/kunit.rs
> >  F:     rust/macros/kunit.rs
> >  F:     scripts/rustdoc_test_*
> >  F:     tools/testing/kunit/
> > +F:     */*[_-]kunit*.c
> > +F:     */*/*[_-]kunit*.c
> > +F:     */*/*/*[_-]kunit*.c
> > +F:     */*/*/*/*[_-]kunit*.c
> > +F:     */*/*/*/*/*[_-]kunit*.c
> >
> >  KERNEL USERMODE HELPER
> >  M:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> So many rules covering all possible depths?
> Sounds good.
> 
> BTW at this point it would be useful to implement the ** glob operator,
> but maybe it's not worth it.

K: or N: patterns would be cleaner than both proposals here.


Thomas