From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E34A269B1C for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.54 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761152423; cv=none; b=JznqeGGgeHvHR4eRxyfGbFEEdHFue4EdlIhJYVGj7CKWLFTJdfqkLKHMomcThvM9cWDImVRAv9BqyPni4Af1dI2Iv3opusuSoK8SFMBXBPq9b7p6i0uHPp+kW3QFHvqBzW6mHFKwc2QWurOAY2zR/y7otvvR1I1Z8qvjMC+FTXQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761152423; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jEIK/MnFGgvkU2jSoBVRXZVtORuZhZu66mF1C8+cc1M=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nNBuAOkx1GHBXMO43ncJi5X2t4ELFmCvcmQRe7URFN1ULH6VgXDNmYnL8aOOt2AEG5TAs4D5DdVQp2CxhHg2eQXlVSbrsE7+AKz6yG8cLd/0Z5qUN+8qQSkxikN80zVF40dbMHa9cJxwudL7rZtJERm2+JmeXz1UFnkDTqU7hm8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=hGf/b6wu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.54 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="hGf/b6wu" Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3ecde0be34eso787137f8f.1 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:00:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761152419; x=1761757219; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DmMvg3UcZfyV6BSGB2AmIHcJ7yJomZZTxM0vi/9tarU=; b=hGf/b6wuq1w0zN87xVcaPsBNJ8D7KrdU3L3ilTOFgFuBEVDt8jGhDSQNFu5d+CIBzP 8rLDuvcQp6FU2XjWpR3Jb9j48ClbfbSmwULdf/IrSEaUHO8ymLDC2MrBmmlP0NFrS5TO sXGLNG/8LNJLxgXCN8ltU8MiU9NBDEfuCkUUj4hmkCfDHfdtO1ilvupOV5rnr5zEOwUI Glcomfrc/7TvVr5uK9ictSS2UkEpsJ0Z4C3yUVgzKjLHlWMr7Bv81dgnzri72lrjKWTy 7uKVg3ujsfpiH+fuG5po5PN5jzWVYFnLncS7dtqZOAXJ7fM3tCXbDedgtmEwm2y1rO32 0sqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761152419; x=1761757219; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DmMvg3UcZfyV6BSGB2AmIHcJ7yJomZZTxM0vi/9tarU=; b=VfrLjjVgbvgoOKexmR3UkMjhJHi3HLqdfA2uny7yrs7H9RtNq9OeBZxSsYQPD5PNGP +yPmn6Fbhy+HIJFmSfwoEFjQucn1U4Uj/JkT8Em804TC7eSB0i2H/v04QR6ppOnNjPm8 Gu+rYGWdaYZGJ4VIVVO9uOkTwHBf0ETypKKVA2hwysklCO1uBHE9bOrxap7B7oXu9s/4 nNqjH2yh78bvt7+JaMKk6d0d6WL59GUbOV7usbYFp0OwvCO90EwRD/71VQOCHOdMxwil ISLm2NHu1/LS0gh4auGZfQ+Kw9znHMviq7dJTdXd1Q1DMvZowcQVmS1pQNkbCpE9zRk3 P6iw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX71PKeDlEQTvJBGFTtdfg9pRN7UfJmuASrMsICBgZmZvWIzxprrH0Yo5AuZDL1D4QGX9j7KBvq7g==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzWygSSo/BYS1mUNdxLWQSB6VdGsB+332Mw+zzP+TOoH2f8KlT7 2sVFM3yuIhHmcvTa3ELtH3yx5Tf2pFdJ1LVH037oQOpKby4PCYczTBfp X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv3hTZ1eweYeaKo4nyiLhSjmoBJV9wzgdYt/pTrhFKMPYRS3LPIWt75xjW1nr2 dnERS8MfQakArZKIACxZG+l6/X5wvOvbWi9S4qrVKHa8bGFH5WD9Wv4B3AhXzv8wmfPRv5BiJa1 PVDXCC3F/YS2nsS3Wk2O21BgE13evGLfxAStVEBF2xyR84WUVYFGNNY29NhFYuQj5diJnsy84qc 7WqwT0bKqJ1Y9zNwmrZ0z0bRq6kEyv3gP1NXUq0hKOXMyqKckEaDOEAM+rBc+JQcc0zNDAtDTU7 8Xx6QTn15wPwfI7waPzWDINLfmfrmqTD7cQMddTiJ4CXuSdH/V6O3ZxzL84Q0fMuyFY1dvV8d/N HviHWLJMm5PVmToK+pKj67qfP34ZnW3s/r3a03NmyVf0ichJIrf+lOY9zeFBQpCmKOSaHP/zL08 U7k8iEhz6MJuUE2AROJ+DGFUS6zqEJT+tKQ08ysAFSwxE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEMXPTtbN3fcgfvF2OXh/lo9HWBSKGGaPfgEOyBk8teyMLT7+VrOSifMFf/Ae1v5WbO89iFqw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:22c5:b0:427:401:197e with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-42856a82823mr1703265f8f.25.1761152419203; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:10d:c096:325:77fd:1068:74c8:af87? ([2620:10d:c092:600::1:b576]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-475c438caeesm50619835e9.18.2025.10.22.10.00.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20f8d441-914d-48b9-85d4-c1891f44d20f@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:01:42 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring zcrx: add MAINTAINERS entry To: Jens Axboe , David Wei , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Mina Almasry References: <20251021202944.3877502-1-dw@davidwei.uk> <60d18b98-6a25-4db7-a4c6-0c86d6c4f787@gmail.com> <832b03de-6b59-4a07-b7ea-51492c4cca7e@kernel.dk> <3990f8ee-4194-4b06-820e-c0ecbcb08af1@gmail.com> <8486dc74-44a3-4972-9713-2e24cefced22@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: Pavel Begunkov In-Reply-To: <8486dc74-44a3-4972-9713-2e24cefced22@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/22/25 15:34, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/22/25 8:25 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 10/22/25 14:17, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 10/22/25 5:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 10/21/25 21:29, David Wei wrote: >>>>> Same as [1] but also with netdev@ as an additional mailing list. >>>>> io_uring zero copy receive is of particular interest to netdev >>>>> participants too, given its tight integration to netdev core. >>>> >>>> David, I can guess why you sent it, but it doesn't address the bigger >>>> problem on the networking side. Specifically, why patches were blocked >>>> due to a rule that had not been voiced before and remained blocked even >>>> after pointing this out? And why accusations against me with the same >>>> circumstances, which I equate to defamation, were left as is without >>>> any retraction? To avoid miscommunication, those are questions to Jakub >>>> and specifically about the v3 of the large buffer patchset without >>>> starting a discussion here on later revisions. >>>> >>>> Without that cleared, considering that compliance with the new rule >>>> was tried and lead to no results, this behaviour can only be accounted >>>> to malice, and it's hard to see what cooperation is there to be had as >>>> there is no indication Jakub is going to stop maliciously blocking >>>> my work. >>> >>> The netdev side has been pretty explicit on wanting a MAINTAINERS entry >> >> Can you point out where that was requested dated before the series in >> question? Because as far as I know, only CC'ing was mentioned and >> only as a question, for which I proposed a fairly standard way of >> dealing with it by introducing API and agreeing on any changes to that, >> and got no reply. Even then, I was CC'ing netdev for changes that might >> be interesting to netdev, that includes the blocked series. > > Not interested in digging out those other discussions, but Mina had a > patch back in August, and there was the previous discussion on the big If August, I'm pretty sure you're referring to one of the replies / follow ups after the mentioned series. > patchset. At least I very much understood it as netdev wanting to be > CC'ed, and the straight forward way to always have that is to make it > explicit in MAINTAINERS. > >>> so that they see changes. I don't think it's unreasonable to have that, >>> and it doesn't mean that they need to ack things that are specific to >>> zcrx. Nobody looks at all the various random lists, giving them easier >>> insight is a good thing imho. I think we all agree on that. >>> >>> Absent that change, it's also not unreasonable for that side to drag >>> their feet a bit on further changes. Could the communication have been >>> better on that side? Certainly yes. But it's hard to blame them too much >>> on that front, as any response would have predictably yielded an >>> accusatory reply back. >> >> Not really, solely depends on the reply. > > Well, statistically based on recent and earlier replies in those > threads, if I was on that side, I'd say that would be a fair assumption. > >>> And honestly, nobody wants to deal with that, if >> >> Understandable, but you're making it sound like I started by >> throwing accusations and not the other way around. But it's >> true that I never wanted to deal with it. > > Honestly I don't even know where this all started, but it hasn't been > going swimmingly the last few months would be my assessment. > > My proposal is to put all of this behind us and move forward in a > productive manner. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from > continuing down the existing path of arguing about who did what and why, > and frankly I have zero inclination to participate in that. It should be > in everybody's best interest to move forward, productively. And if that > starts with a simple MAINTAINERS entry, that seems like a good place to > start. So _please_, can we do that? I'm convinced it's not going to help with the work being blocked or the aforementioned issues, but ok, let's have it your way. -- Pavel Begunkov