Re: [PATCH v2] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as an AMD SVM & IOMMU reviewer

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 09.10.2025 10:19, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-10-09 08:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.10.2025 22:11, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -220,6 +220,23 @@ F:     xen/drivers/acpi/
>>>   F:        xen/include/acpi/
>>>   F:        tools/libacpi/
>>>   
>>> +AMD IOMMU
>>> +M: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> +M: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> +M: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> +R: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
>>> +S: Supported
>>> +F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/
>>> +
>>> +AMD SVM
>>> +M: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> +M: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> +M: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> +R: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
>>> +S: Supported
>>> +F: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
>>> +F: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
>>
>> What about xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/svm/ ? It didn't need specific
>> mentioning on the X86 entry, but it would now. Also F: entries generally
>> want sorting alphabetically as well.
> 
> Yes, that all sounds good.  I based this on a revert of 
> 8395f275ebd11b4cacb12da09911e7918ccc7518 and alphabetization was 
> incorrect there.  Sorry about that.
> 
>>> @@ -601,7 +618,8 @@ M:      Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>   S:        Supported
>>>   L:        xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>   F:        xen/arch/x86/
>>> -F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/
>>> +X: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/
>>> +X: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
>>
>> Didn't the v1 discussion result in there being no need for these X:
>> entries?
> 
> I thought Anthony said they should be split out for proper nesting:
> 
>  >The exclusion is likely unnecessary, and ./get_maintainer.pl will just
>  >get the information (email, ...) from every sections that a file match.
>  >But the duplication is necessary due to the "The meaning of nesting"
>  >described in the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> I took the second sentence to mean they should remain.

But the 2nd sentence was about duplication (i.e. splitting), not
exclusion.

Jan