Re: Followup of yesterday's design session "refactoring the REST"

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 09.07.20 11:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.07.2020 07:56, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > Yesterday's design session at Xen Developer Summit "Hypervisor Team: .."
> > had one topic regarding whether we should find specific maintainers of
> > all the files currently assigned to "THE REST" in order to lower the
> > amount of reviews for those assigned to be "THE REST" maintainers.
> >
> > Modifying the MAINTAINERS file adding "REST@x.y" as REST maintainer
> > and running the rune:
> >
> > git ls-files | while true; do f=`line`; [ "$f" = "" ] && exit; \
> > echo $f `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $f | awk '{print $(NF)}'`; \
> > done | awk '/REST/ { print $1}'
> >
> > shows that basically the following files are covered by "THE REST":
> >
> > - files directly in /
> > - config/
> > - most files in docs/ (not docs/man/)
> > - misc/ (only one file)
> > - scripts/
> > - lots of files in xen/common/
> > - xen/crypto/
> > - lots of files in xen/drivers/
> > - lots of files in xen/include/
> > - xen/scripts/
> > - some files in xen/tools/
> >
> > I have attached the file list.
> >
> > So the basic idea to have a "hypervisor REST" and a "tools REST"
> > wouldn't make a huge difference, if we don't assign docs/ to "tools
> > REST".
> >
> > So I think it would make sense to:
> >
> > - look through the docs/ and xen/include/ files whether some of those
> >     can be assigned to a component already having dedicated maintainers
> >
> > - try to find maintainers for the other files, especially those in
> >     xen/common/ and xen/drivers/ (including the related include files, of
> >     course)
> At least for files in xen/common/ I think it was really intentional
> that they - as core hypervisor files - fall under THE REST. We could
Depends on the files. Those files are under xen/common/ as they are not
architecture dependent. I agree that many of those files are core
hypervisor files, but OTOH e.g. common/sched/core.c has dedicated
maintainers in spite of being a core file.

I don't think files like xen/common/gdbstub.c or xen/common/xenoprof.c
fall in this category, so revisiting the file list would surely be a
good idea.

> of course have a "Core Hypervisor" (or so) group, which would already
> ...
>
> > - if any of the REST maintainers doesn't want to receive mails for a
> >     group of the remaining REST files split the REST maintainers/files up
> >     accordingly
> ... allow moving some into this direction.
Yes.

> For files under xen/drivers/ not currently covered by other entries it
> may indeed be (more) feasible to find individual maintainers.
I agree.


Juergen