Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Shawn Anastasio as PPC64 reviewer

[Timothy Pearson <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel" 
> <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:23:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Shawn Anastasio as PPC64 reviewer

> On 28/10/2025 11:28 pm, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> Shawn is no longer with Raptor Engineering.  For now, add myself as PPC64
>> maintainer.
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index ecd3f40df8..c8764a8c5f 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ F:       xen/drivers/cpufreq/
>>  F:  xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/
>>  
>>  PPC64
>> -M:  Shawn Anastasio <sanastasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> +M:  Timothy Pearson <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>  F:  xen/arch/ppc/
> 
> Sorry to hear, and thanks for letting us know.
> 
> For a long while now, the committers (the group called The Rest in
> maintainer) have been operating as if this was an R rather than an M.

My apologies for not reaching out sooner; Shawn's departure has required 
rearranging some resources on this end and we're only getting back to Xen now.  
Raptor remains committed to the port, and I intend to stay on as reviewer / 
maintainer in the future to prevent this situation from ocurring again.

> It turns out that most changes technically touching PPC are common/arch
> rearrangements, or common things that need a copy in all arches, or
> comments fixes/etc.  We've been putting these in without a PPC ack, so
> as not to block work in other area.  Obviously, anything that is PPC
> specific waits for input.

Makes sense, and appreciated.

> If you're not aware, we do have some PPC64 build jobs and one QEMU boot
> test in CI running on every commit.  e.g.
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/pipelines/2127184050

Indeed!  In fact, if there is any desire for native builds in parallel on our 
POWER9 infrastructure we could arrange that as well.

> Would you mind changing to R to reflect how things are working in practice?

I can do that.  Is there a path where we would want to move that back toward M 
or is this decision a wait and see as the port progresses?

> Also, we're in code freeze for the Xen 4.21 release right now.  This
> patch will be fine, with a SoB, but the others will have to wait until
> 4.22 opens.

Fair enough, nothing here is time sensitive.  Work continues on the port and 
patches will start flowing again for 4.22.

Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you over the coming months!