Re: [PATCH v1 00/18] KVM selftests code consolidation and cleanup

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Anyways, if someone wants to pursue this, these ideas and the "requirement" should
> > be run by the checkpatch maintainers.  They have far more experience and authority
> > in this area, and I suspect we aren't the first people to want checkpatch to get
> > involved in enforcing shortlog scope.
> 
> Documenting would at least be an improvement over what we have today
> since it would eliminate the need to re-explain the preferred rules
> every time. We can just point to the documentation when reviewing
> patches.

Agreed.  And there are many other things I want to formalize for KVM x86, e.g.
testing expectations, health requirements for the various branches, what each
branch is used for etc...

If you want to send a patch for the shortlogs thing, maybe create

  Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst

and link it into Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst?

> `git log --pretty=oneline` is not a great way to document shortlog
> scopes because it does not explain the rules (e.g. when to use "KVM:
> x86: " vs "KVM: x86/mmu: "), does not explain why things the way they
> are, and is inconsistent since we don't always catch every patch that
> goes by with a non-preferred shortlog scope.