On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:59:08 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 28/07/2017 13:56, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:51:14 +0200 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 28/07/2017 09:00, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>> On 28.07.2017 07:35, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> > >>>> --- > >>>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > >>>> index 3b472d7a09..ece02522be 100644 > >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS > >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > >>>> @@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ S: Supported > >>>> F: */kvm.* > >>>> F: accel/kvm/ > >>>> F: include/sysemu/kvm*.h > >>>> +F: linux-headers/asm-*/kvm*.h > >>> > >>> The linux-headers are not really maintained by the QEMU project - so I > >>> guess we do not need an entry for these? > >> > >> Actually I agree with the patch. I'd like to be CCed on > >> update-linux-headers patches, and this achieves it. :) > > > > But would it not a better idea to add an entry for all headers touched > > by update-linux-headers, then? > > One thing doesn't exclude the other. That entry would also list the > script itself and linux-headers. KVM, VFIO and virtio patterns can only > list the files they care about. Migration could list userfaultfd, > possibly. And there's also include/standard-headers/, which includes > PCI and input subsystem files... It has to be perfected, but it's a > good idea. Personally, I'm not really a fan. If something is changed in one of the headers, it implies that either it has already been changed in the original headers in Linux (and I will have seen it then), or that someone is sending a preliminary patch (and I should hope that I'm already cc:ed for the changes that this headers change is for then). It does not really hurt, but it feels wrong.
