>>> On 01.07.16 at 09:40, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 7/1/2016 10:27 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 01.07.16 at 09:15, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>> Fix vm-event section of MAINTAINERS file. >> Would be nice to mention here which commit(s) caused these to go >> out of sync with the actual code. > > Why?
Well, I already said so above - it would be nice (for reference, obviously). >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -402,10 +402,14 @@ M: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> >>> M: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com> >>> S: Supported >>> F: xen/common/mem_access.c >>> -F: xen/*/vm_event.c >>> -F: xen/*/monitor.c >>> +F: xen/common/vm_event.c >>> +F: xen/arch/*/vm_event.c >>> +F: xen/common/monitor.c >>> +F: xen/arch/*/monitor.c >>> +F: xen/arch/x86/hvm/monitor.c >>> F: xen/include/*/mem_access.h >>> F: xen/include/*/monitor.h >>> +F: xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/monitor.h >>> F: xen/include/*/vm_event.h >>> F: tools/tests/xen-access >> Please at least don't make (un)sorted-ness worse than it was. > > Please at least mention how these were sorted (/unsorted). They are > currently sorted, just not alphabetically (common before arch, grouped > by file, .c before .h). > How do you want me to sort them? Be specific (and don't make me guess > the rules, where is this written? if not written anywhere, how should I > adjust CODE_STYLE to fix that?). I agree that there are many violations of the (alphabetical) sorting we try to aim at. I'm sorry that I didn't say "alphabetical", as I've assumed people contributing would be reading other xen-devel traffic concerning similar areas. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
