Thomas Huth <[email protected]> writes: > On 18/12/2025 16.25, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Thomas Huth <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 18/12/2025 14.49, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 02:37:43PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>>>> Which unmaintained files are we still changing? Unmaintained files >>>>>>> sorted by number of commits in the past year (since v9.2.0): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ for i in `cat unmaintained-files`; do echo -n "$i "; >>>>>>> git-rev-list v9.2.0.. $i | wc -l; done | awk '{ printf "%7d %s\n", $2, >>>>>>> $1 }' | sort -rn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 107 tests/functional/meson.build >>>>>> >>>>>> Opps, that's a mistake. It should of course be under the >>>>>> general maint heading "Functional testing framework" >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! I can patch that. >>>>> >>>>> What about the other uncovered files in tests/functional/? >>>> >>>>> tests/functional/aarch64/meson.build >>>> >>>> [snip many more] >>>> >>>> I'd wildcard tests/functional/*/meson.build under the >>>> general maint. >>> >>> Either that, or make sure the the architecture maintainers own the whole >>> tests/functional/<arch> folders. >> >> The former is easy. Regarding the latter... >> >> The MAINTAINERS section we use to cover an architecture is often less >> than obvious. >> >> meson.build under tests/functional/ covered so far: >> >> tests/functional/alpha/meson.build Alpha TCG CPUs >> tests/functional/avr/meson.build AVR TCG CPUs >> tests/functional/hppa/meson.build HP B160L, HP C3700 >> tests/functional/i386/meson.build X86 general architecture support >> tests/functional/riscv32/meson.build RISC-V TCG CPUs >> tests/functional/riscv64/meson.build RISC-V TCG CPUs >> tests/functional/s390x/meson.build S390 Virtio-ccw >> tests/functional/x86_64/meson.build X86 general architecture support >> >> We have "$ARCH general architecture support" (obvious enough), "$ARCH >> TCG CPUs" (meh), and even machine sections that happen to be the only >> one of this architecture in MAINTAINERS (meh^2). > > Yes, it's ugly, but that's basically what we currently have in MAINTAINERS, > I think. > >> Thomas, should tests/functional/s390x/meson.build move to "S390 general >> architecture support"? > > It doesn't matter much since there is currently only one single machine for > s390x, and that's this S390 virtio-ccw machine.
Different maintainers, though. I'll leave it alone. >> Not covered: >> >> tests/functional/aarch64/meson.build >> tests/functional/arm/meson.build >> >> There is no ARM general architecture support section. Add these >> to ARM TCG CPUs? > > That's the best solution, I think. > >> tests/functional/generic/meson.build >> >> Functional testing framework? > > Yes, please. > >> tests/functional/loongarch64/meson.build >> >> LoongArch TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/m68k/meson.build >> >> M68K TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/meson.build >> >> Functional testing framework, as discussed above. > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/microblaze/meson.build >> tests/functional/microblazeel/meson.build >> >> MicroBlaze TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/mips/meson.build >> tests/functional/mips64/meson.build >> tests/functional/mips64el/meson.build >> tests/functional/mipsel/meson.build >> >> We have MIPS general architecture support. I guess we can add >> them there. > > Sounds right. > >> tests/functional/or1k/meson.build >> >> OpenRISC TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/ppc/meson.build >> tests/functional/ppc64/meson.build >> >> PowerPC TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/rx/meson.build >> >> RENESAS RX CPUs? > > Yes, though it's orphan, so it won't help much. > >> tests/functional/sh4/meson.build >> tests/functional/sh4eb/meson.build >> >> SH4 TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/sparc/meson.build >> tests/functional/sparc64/meson.build >> >> SPARC TCG CPUs? > > Yes. > >> tests/functional/xtensa/meson.build >> >> Xtensa TCG CPUs? > > Yes. I'll post a patch for these. >>>>> tests/functional/arm/test_max78000fthr.py >>>> >>>> Added by Thomas but not sure what maintainers category it should go >>>> under. >>> >>> No, I just moved the file around. This belongs to the "max78000fthr" arm >>> machine - we need a complete new entry in MAINTAINERS for that one if I get >>> this right. >> >> Which files? My best guess based on git history: >> >> docs/system/arm/max78000.rst >> hw/misc/max78000_aes.c >> hw/misc/max78000_gcr.c >> hw/misc/max78000_icc.c >> hw/misc/max78000_trng.c >> include/hw/arm/max78000_soc.h >> include/hw/misc/max78000_aes.h >> include/hw/misc/max78000_gcr.h >> include/hw/misc/max78000_icc.h >> include/hw/misc/max78000_trng.h >> tests/functional/arm/test_max78000fthr.py > > You missed: > > hw/arm/max78000fthr.c > hw/arm/max78000_soc.c No idea how I missed them, git-log shows them. > Maybe simply use hw/*/max78000* and include/hw/*/max78000* to cover most of > the files? Yup. I asked the author whether he's willing to serve as maintainer.
