Stefan Richter wrote:
On 13 Jan, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Stefan Richter wrote:
On 13 Jan, Richard Knutsson wrote:
[...]
SUPERCOOL ALPHA CARD
P: Clark Kent
M: [email protected]
L: [email protected]
C: SUPER_A
S: Maintained
(C: for CONFIG. Any better idea?)
then if someone changes a file who are built with CONFIG_SUPER_A, can
easily backtrack it to the correct maintainer(s).
[...]
My first idea was to use the pathway and define that directories above
the specified (if not specified by another) would fall to the current
maintainer. It would work, but requires that all pathways be specified
at once, or a few maintainers with "short" pathways would get much of
the patches (and it is not as correct/easy to maintain as looking for
the CONFIG_flag).
Any thoughts on this is very much appreciated (is there any flaws with
this?).
- What about drivers which have no MAINTAINER entry but reside in a
subsystem with MAINTAINER entry?
Hmm, how are those drivers built? Can you please point me to one?
I believe you read too quickly what I wrote, didn't you? :-)
The MAINTAINER file doesn't influence how drivers are built.
What the... now I have no idea why I deleted the previous text... oh
well, I tried 'grep -Er "^M\:" */*' but did not find any such entries.
Or did you mean files just stating "I maintaining this file"?
At least I know so much about the building-process that I don't think
MAINTAINER is involved :). It was meant as: how is a driver build
without some CONFIG_-flag set, but not sure now what I wanted with that
(blaming low blood-suger, got a pizza since then).
- What if these drivers depend on two subsystems?
Not sure if I understand the problem. I don't see the maintainers for
the subsystems too interested in a driver, and it is the drivers
maintainer we want.
I am specifically thinking of drivers which are maintained by the
subsystem maintainers. (Well, see below...)
More then one subsystem maintainers that is maintainers to a driver? I
would think one off those would quite naturally become the maintainer of
the driver and then accepting patches from the rest.
Besides, the subsystem maintainer could point the submitter to a
more appropriate channel or ignore the submitter. (A submitter who
feels ignored is hopefully doing some more research then.) Also,
a driver maintainer certainly reads the mailinglist to which the
submitter posted.
Hopefully, but I think it is asking much of the maintainer and then
there will certanly be confused/frustrated submitter who don't know why
they don't get any answer nor patched included. We have already seen a
few asking about what happened with their patches.
- Config options map to object files but do not map directly to source
files. Diffstats show source files.
Can you make a object-file out of 2 c-files? Using Makefile?
Yes, you can, although I don't know if it is directly done in the
kernel build system. Of course what is often done is to make n object
files out of n c files, then link them to make 1 object file.
How?:
gcc -c test.c test2.c -o test3.o
gcc: cannot specify -o with -c or -S with multiple files
(with only -c i got test.o and test2.o)
In the kernel building system, an object-file is made from a c- or
s-file with the same name. Then, of course, they can be put together to
a larger object-file.
Example: The sbp2 driver is an IEEE 1394 driver and a SCSI driver.
sbp2.o is enabled by CONFIG_IEEE1394_SBP2 which depends on
CONFIG_IEEE1394 and CONFIG_SCSI. sbp2.c resides in drivers/ieee1394/.
What is the algorithm to look up sbp2's maintainers?
The one listed for CONFIG_IEEE1394_SBP2 :)
...OK, we /could/ write
IEEE 1394 SUBSYSTEM
C: IEEE1394
C: IEEE1394_OHCI1394
C: IEEE1394_SBP2
C: IEEE1394_DV1394 /* would better be put into a new own entry due to different status of maintenance level */
C: IEEE1394_VIDEO1394 /* that one perhaps too */
L: [email protected]
P: Ben and me
[...]
IEEE 1394 IPV4 DRIVER (eth1394)
C: IEEE1394_ETH1394
[...]
What about possibility to replace it with:
C: IEEE1394*
and use the same system as with the path-approach, "longest wins". (I
don't think just IEEE1394 is appropriate, since then there is
possibility with false-positives again)
On the other hand, we could write
IEEE 1394 SUBSYSTEM
F: drivers/ieee1394
L: [email protected]
P: Ben and me
[...]
IEEE 1394 IPV4 DRIVER (eth1394)
F: drivers/ieee1394/eth1394
[...]
If it was done the latter way, i.e. using F: not C:, it could be
made a rule that the more specific entries come after more generic
entries. Thus the last match of multiple matches is the proper one.
In any case, the longest match is the proper one.
As I wrote in the initial mail, my first idea was like that. But how to
solve when different drivers (with of course different maintainers) lies
in the same directory?
I thought something like include/linux/config.h,autoconf.h could be used
when referring to a few specific files in a directory. But there is also
the problem that all mails were the maintainer has no F: will fall in
the lap of the "good" maintainer with the shorter pathway, and I'm
afraid this might make people hesitant to add the F:.
But what about ex ieee1394_core.o? Is ieee1394-objs "equal" to
ieee1394.o? (Seems I need to read some Makefile docs...)
Yes and yes. (Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt)
Thanks
(Btw, what I can see, there is no possibility to get the wrong
maintainer. Just that sometime it can't give you an answer and you have
to do it in the old way).
Your approach could give a wrong answer if someone implements a
very "clever" mapping. My approach could give a wrong answer if
someone takes a generic match while there was a more specific
match.
Your approach requires to evaluate the diffstat, one or more
Makefile (taking the Linux Makefile syntax into account), and the
MAINTAINERS file. My approach just requires to evaluate the
diffstat and the MAINTAINERS file.
Can't disagree on any. It is just the problems with false-positives and
picking out specific files that made me reconsider.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
