Re: [PATCH] maintainers: add regex matching for xsm

["Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/22/23 05:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.05.2023 13:48, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> > XSM is a subsystem where it is equally important of how and where its hooks are
> > called as is the implementation of the hooks. The people best suited for
> > evaluating the how and where are the XSM maintainers and reviewers. This
> > creates a challenge as the hooks are used throughout the hypervisor for which
> > the XSM maintainers and reviewers are not, and should not be, a reviewer for
> > each of these subsystems in the MAINTAINERS file. Though the MAINTAINERS file
> > does support the use of regex matches, 'K' identifier, that are applied to both
> > the commit message and the commit delta. Adding the 'K' identifier will declare
> > that any patch relating to XSM require the input from the XSM maintainers and
> > reviewers. For those that use the get_maintianers script, the 'K' identifier
> > will automatically add the XSM maintainers and reviewers.
> With, aiui, a fair chance of false positives when e.g. XSM hook invocations
> are only in patch context. Much like ...
I was torn between matching lines with `xsm_` and matching lines with 
the first non-whitespace character being a `+` and having `xsm_`. In the 
end, I opted for the former because the concern is not just a change to 
the line with the XSM hook, but the changing context around the hook. As 
a result, yes, there will be false positives as well as the potentially 
false negatives as a relevant context change may happen far enough 
outside the diff scope. Regardless, the end result will be an increased 
awareness at the cost of some noise. INHO I find this to be a better 
situation than the current place we are at today.
> > Any one not using
> > get_maintainers, it will be their responsibility to ensure that if their work
> > touches and XSM hook, to ensure the XSM maintainers and reviewers are copied.
> ... manual intervention is needed in the case of not using the script, I
> think people should also be at least asked to see about avoiding stray Cc-s
> in that case. Unless of course I'm misreading get_maintainers.pl (my Perl
> isn't really great) or the script would be adjusted to only look at added/
> removed lines (albeit even that would leave a certain risk of false
> positives).
>
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ F:  tools/flask/
> >   F:    xen/include/xsm/
> >   F:    xen/xsm/
> >   F:    docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt
> > +K:  xsm_.*
> > +K:  \b(xsm|XSM)\b
> Nit: Please make padding match that of adjacent lines.
s
Apologies, I didn't catch expandtab was on, will resubmit with hard tabs 
in place.
v/r,
dps