From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) (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 54A9734C9BD for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761143063; cv=none; b=T7u/JUVScPK3D+CxBp7LLVOuw8sZtwXVrLti7nI9Y4qmTYa/wJ6bmaFm798NyXqZdy2jPuSLquf56qHwoP6tBQt04vV7HWdJees4CKRu2EzgOQ3heDBw8Nhiw6AzbytQK90MH5Vh9Ad2PY8cFKkwpEQWJzPYEpvP+7KHMGKRF5Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761143063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KiLb3Ij4kNTsI8p5dH+8PrPKjndGfKFXyCL4d4sUz0Y=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=tqsUyZOgOXmZUqrZ0eu06O5+ldDiWSfJYu3sjUMbBR5SLMqC7x6qBsc1pfPW0Ke59e3Eg+JboeNpVpwPUsj0hwouFr453BXCr5bNnVhw3ApIjgi7dJnLYZeRlUM/06z0JNZblKTyuC25tFsCEmV99mg0z62k3+qVy68S5K7AKF8= 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=Kn3BN3hL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 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="Kn3BN3hL" Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-427007b1fe5so4623132f8f.1 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 07:24:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761143060; x=1761747860; 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=cxCF3VSt3yJ/4Htvgm+f7POBa00pQ4DGvcpk5YYFwFI=; b=Kn3BN3hLjmTkizkKIxOxadJhSQLPWaoz05eSckFXqDqMMCmaNvPTl38yEbTFJGwvcP uyk4YABp+kCczzgYdW/EQcs9vHWD+LJyCRP9TjqwwK2lWsxbGK8cneHQU4arMJiTiLDj 4vGOPnkYtpuAQnNrvGCX15PgTZXpyc0eLn40ztllaemrQ0XGh0C2z0t6ySmtg0wdGKBz 4MrgajiBEstbQq40dGiPkyNuxVgE+dyqUhKZyi4FxHW7tYPg//zQEH5S8JAOuI55VwJi 7wY1BJ7S9GYcw6Kr69i9fCKLd6f1dqSDWNAbTN2kQHoP7kHfd3NRBR8esXvYkA1exBP5 L4sA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761143060; x=1761747860; 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=cxCF3VSt3yJ/4Htvgm+f7POBa00pQ4DGvcpk5YYFwFI=; b=c91Xxno5o8jaTav4XeuPQsT5a23+35acII1A8Fio/4E0+jmWX0e/agamp5FHzDi+Sx ZaAU2Zo5ZTSIy19xgHQT2Upji6SN5733P+YjsFcLEC8vipM1DO5q9Zpe+zEpk5T7fMaV ojhVMdHGonogaG6aCTciN4QC1Mo8qVARzR7gxXBt4fbNP+FhXW8g2eQWjh9CaeoEVPAO qkdg4B5+Hy5IVIXzIK4FFY1tI3J6/fW7g/6LXVlqeq0HZlbSnTy0N/43rIOrQrawfAsd 49kWlzoWP0pBtdsV33dANuyoyeHm+sLr66JQi5vrVeTTwfW9/szoB36jHLlXLfJjNstO HEKQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVEClviNe3a/7ureu8Pgz+x71eVY84/sSdR6mtmRMYHA9UT9Lp9VsnmC/TMaJwZimcdGfsCNf+Buw==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywjbm4ka7f2rLqtCw+MNqc58FYmQB5zIoVvfnbKCSNYnWgzx0Z6 QFC1A0paqxnWNvduP70legGqAVhn/c+i4ZKXV4A4vsvnlkAkQ1Zvs5bD X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncudkn9+E83jPyEzt7ALilmUxYg/Awx2GnGUtW1LANrSyBmgJ7X2VtVrJYUox9l bGtA2394TaRXBx1Qv6pGX7gEzENhPMrczKj4o5dF9cXia8SxxyLNMkxOeHzEQchMaPYOdFNAMAj uly43NZuUd2rN3asx6cR1tkFojCnikseGVGRsHBJFtkCes5BhHhJTtvrslrRsud9pZEERtsPW1H NpFnngLwovoTZj/PLthz83IqgMN5uZOaVyvpVDq51q85YCTPRY4LalvqmgHpBiTglUjn6FOoUvF +efMkLrRG54PjqSQZFDssurjQJqVotJXE2hqQmoU5pZM3Qmivzf+/5K3o3sMcbt9BKrvYaq9KrE ZYjT6FaRovDhf4eyJuoCcioraaHgiezn9KZ+WnDfZdRCQNT4CkeVP+6mh2ObvWeE2IzSVEWX4Td QZKWwAc/hYP7PukwuZ8tsJ9YsDG5djvd+J X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFkTw7szOwawIqv47HRGrQT8MYYw4EHyKoRoa8ZcG7xMhhP9wIMt2VXTQKAISRkcJMJnQVZ3A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:25ee:b0:427:62d:132c with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-427062d135emr11501252f8f.21.1761143059543; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 07:24:19 -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 ffacd0b85a97d-42856e45062sm1965758f8f.41.2025.10.22.07.24.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Oct 2025 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3990f8ee-4194-4b06-820e-c0ecbcb08af1@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 15:25:44 +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> Content-Language: en-US From: Pavel Begunkov In-Reply-To: <832b03de-6b59-4a07-b7ea-51492c4cca7e@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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