On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 09/10/2010 12:45 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I make no claims that this is accurate or exhaustive but I think it's a >>> reasonable place to start. >>> >>> As the file mentions, the purpose of this file is to give contributors >>> information about who they can go to with questions about a particular >>> piece of >>> code or who they can ask for review. >>> >>> If you sign up for a piece of code and indicate that it's Maintained or >>> Supported, please be prepared to be responsive to questions about that >>> subsystem. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> >>> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>> index 79dfc7f..3894cd8 100644 >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -9,89 +9,388 @@ to be CC'd when submitting a patch to obtain >>> appropriate review. >>> In general, if you have a question about inclusion of a patch, you >>> should >>> consult qemu-devel and not any specific individual privately. >>> >>> -Project leaders: >>> ----------------- >>> +Please see the MAINTAINERS file in the Linux kernel for information >>> about how >>> +to update this file. >>> >>> -Paul Brook >>> -Anthony Liguori >>> +General Project Administration >>> +------------------------------ >>> +M: Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> >>> +M: Paul Brook<p...@codesourcery.com> >>> >>> Guest CPU cores (TCG): >>> >> >> Perhaps the CPU names should be in alphabetical order. > > Yeah, I was thinking that alphabetical order across the board would make > sense. > >> For >> completeness, KVM CPUs should have X: target-xxx/kvm.c, though >> currently TCG and KVM maintainers match. >> > > You mean F: right?
No, X: like exclude. > > I already have that in my copy. > >>> +SPARC Machines >>> +-------------- >>> +Sun4u >>> >> >> There is also Sun4v here, though its status could be Odd Fixes. These >> are actually machine classes, but currently only few machines are >> implemented. >> > > What should the entry look like? 'Sun4u, Sun4v' and below: 'Sun4m, Sun4c, Sun4d'. >>> +M: Blue Swirl<blauwir...@gmail.com> >>> +S: Maintained >>> >> >> Maybe also the technical status should be indicated, something like >> Unusable, Boots BIOS, Boots a kernel, Stable? >> > > I'd avoid that here. If something is unusable for long, I think that > automatically makes it Orphan'd, no? Sort of. Perhaps a Wiki page should be a better place for status type information anyway. >>> +F: hw/sun4u.c >>> + >>> +Sun4m >>> >> >> There's also Sun4c and Sun4d machine classes. There are 9 different >> Sun4m machines, but do we want to list them? The same thing actually >> applies to isapc machine. >> > > The granularity is what makes sense as someone who's hacking on the code. > So whether you think folks would need to see the difference really is up to > you since you're the primary person in this space. I think file level is enough.
