Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: move zcrx into a separate branch

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

On 10/20/25 19:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/20/25 11:41 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 10/20/25 18:07, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/17/25 6:37 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 8/20/25 19:20, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 23:43:14 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>> Keep zcrx next changes in a separate branch. It was more productive this
>>>>>> way past month and will simplify the workflow for already lined up
>>>>>> changes requiring cross tree patches, specifically netdev. The current
>>>>>> changes can still target the generic io_uring tree as there are no
>>>>>> strong reasons to keep it separate. It'll also be using the io_uring
>>>>>> mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Did it get dropped in the end? For some reason I can't find it.
>>>
>>> A bit hazy, but I probably did with the discussions on the netdev side
>>> too as they were ongoing.
>>
>> The ones where my work is maliciously blocked with a good email
>> trace to prove that? How is that relevant though?
> 
> I have no horse in that game so don't know which thread(s) that is (nor
> does it sound like I need to know), I just recall Mina and/or someone
> else having patches for this too. Hence I dropped it to get everyone
> come to an agreement on what the appropriate entry would be.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think there's much point to listing a separate branch.

I sent this patch because last cycle I was waiting for roughly a
month for zcrx to be merged, and hence I started managing a branch
anyway, which also turned out to be simpler and more convenient for
me than the usual workflow. Not blaming anyone, but that's how it went.
And there were a couple of (trivial) patches from folks.

> It's all supposed to go upstream to the main tree sooner rather than
> later, once it's ready. And since it's basically just you working on the
> zcrx bits, there's no risk of conflicts. If there was a conflict, then
> yeah we'd just resolve it and route things appropriately. But it also
> doesn't really matter to me what's listed in there, as long as things
> are on the list as well. And iirc the netdev side was the same, they
> just want to ensure they see patches for zcrx. For me, the entry was

Taking everything into account, I have no doubts what started the
discussion was purely about blocking my work, but I'll spare the
details from this thread and since you said you don't need to know.

> more about ensuring you get CC'ed on relevant patches.
> 
> Which is why I figured that you and the netdev side would discuss this
> and come up with an entry that everybody was happy with, then we can get
> that upstream.
-- 
Pavel Begunkov