Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring zcrx: add MAINTAINERS entry

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> they can avoid it. Since there's plenty of other work to do and patches
> to review which is probably going to be more pleasurable, then people go
> and do that.
> 
> The patch David sent is a way to at least solve one part of the issue,
> and imho something like that is a requirement for anything further to be
> considered. Let's perhaps roll with that and attempt to help ourselves
> here, by unblocking that part.
> 
> Are you fine with the patch? If so, I will queue it up and let's please
> move on from beating this dead horse.
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov