On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:22:41PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 12.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum: > > On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > >>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>>>>>> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed > >>>>>>> Marcel > >>>>>>> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM > >>>>>>> migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this > >>>>>>> came up > >>>>>>> you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R: > >>>>>>> so that > >>>>>>> at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring > >>>>>>> discussion? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I might have changed my mind on that. You definitely should be M: > >>>>>> for qdev. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Paolo > >>>>> > >>>>> If Andreas wants to, that's also fine. Several maintainers are > >>>>> better than one. > >>>> > >>>> *If* the maintainers are all willing and able to work together. > >>>> > >>> > >>> No problem here from my point of view :) > >> > >> No problem to me, too. :) > >> > >> I am going to be away from work for 15 days starting on Tuesday > >> Feb 16th. So if Marcel wants to start queueing patches already, > >> please be my guest. I will be able to help on that after I'm > >> back. > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > If there are only a few patches on the mailing list, they can wait. > > If the number will grow I'll send a pull request. > > > > So the MAINTAINER file should look like this, right? > > > > Regarding qdev, Andreas, I also think you are the most qualified > > to take it, will you? > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index 2d6ee17..a86491a 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -1200,6 +1200,13 @@ F: docs/*qmp-* > > F: scripts/qmp/ > > T: git git://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git qapi-next > > > > +Machine > > +M: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > +M: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com> > > +S: Supported > > +F: hw/core/machine.c > > +F: include/hw/boards.h > > + > > Fine with me, ack. > > For qdev.c itself I prefer not to create a misleading "QDev" section but > rather just proposed a first step to split up qdev.c not just into > common vs. system-only code but also in better maintainable subareas. > That's targeted at having a section like "Core device API" covering a > to-be-created device.c with myself plus some backup as maintainer, then > Igor/mst/whomever for "Device hotplug interface" or the like. > qdev-system.c we could consider to split up so that the block/net/char > specific parts can be assigned clear maintainers - haven't investigated > that part yet. In the meantime we could simply create multiple sections > covering different aspects of qdev* files.
Related question: is it OK to have files appearing in multiple sections? It would be useful for qdev*.c and vl.c. I would like to be CCed in any vl.c patch affecting machine initialization, for example. -- Eduardo