Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes:
> Existing entry tests/*.py does not match any file at the moment, the
> semantic is "any py file under tests".
> Kernel MAINTAINERS file supports 'K: regexp' entries to match entries,
> but we don't support it, and I'm not sure it's the right solution here.
I think you mean N:. K: matches file contents. From the kernel's
MAINTAINERS file:
N: Files and directories *Regex* patterns.
N: [^a-z]tegra all files whose path contains tegra
(not including files like integrator)
One pattern per line. Multiple N: lines acceptable.
scripts/get_maintainer.pl has different behavior for files that
match F: pattern and matches of N: patterns. By default,
get_maintainer will not look at git log history when an F: pattern
match occurs. When an N: match occurs, git log history is used
to also notify the people that have git commit signatures.
K: *Content regex* (perl extended) pattern match in a patch or file.
For instance:
K: of_get_profile
matches patches or files that contain "of_get_profile"
K: \b(printk|pr_(info|err))\b
matches patches or files that contain one or more of the words
printk, pr_info or pr_err
One regex pattern per line. Multiple K: lines acceptable.
> Instead of adding "yet another generic solution" to this problem, just
> add manual entries matching existing sublevels. The Python scripts
> section is the only one requiring this, and we can always reconsider the
> K: approach later if another use case emerge.
"Only one" is not correct, because ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 2b5b581e173..61af956ed82 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -3472,7 +3472,9 @@ M: John Snow <[email protected]>
> M: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
> S: Odd Fixes
> F: scripts/*.py
> -F: tests/*.py
> +F: tests/*/*.py
> +F: tests/*/*/*.py
> +F: tests/*/*/*/*.py
... F: scripts/*.py matches only about a third of the .py under scripts.
I'm not demanding you port over N:, I'm just giving you information :)
The "one F: per directory level" solution is pleasantly stupid, but also
somewhat brittle.
>
> Benchmark util
> M: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <[email protected]>
