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

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

[Pavel Begunkov]

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.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index fe168477caa4..d9e4ab173000 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -12870,6 +12870,14 @@ F:	include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
 F:	include/uapi/linux/io_uring/
 F:	io_uring/
 
+IO_URING ZCRX
+M:	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
+L:	io-uring@vger.kernel.org
+T:	git https://github.com/isilence/linux.git zcrx/for-next
+T:	git git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block
+S:	Maintained
+F:	io_uring/zcrx.*
+
 IPMI SUBSYSTEM
 M:	Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net>
 L:	openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net (moderated for non-subscribers)
-- 
2.49.0

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

[Jens Axboe]

On 8/17/25 4:43 PM, 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.

I'm fine with this, as long as it doesn't bifurcate the management of
the overall/main branch - eg patches will flow from the zcrx branch into
my main branch, always. I've got many years of experience of managing
downstream branches with upstream trees, and whenever there are
dependencies, it's a pain in the butt. Don't want to add to that pain.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 8/18/25 16:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/17/25 4:43 PM, 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.
> 
> I'm fine with this, as long as it doesn't bifurcate the management of
> the overall/main branch - eg patches will flow from the zcrx branch into
> my main branch, always. I've got many years of experience of managing
> downstream branches with upstream trees, and whenever there are
> dependencies, it's a pain in the butt. Don't want to add to that pain.

That's the assumed workflow. Apart from conflicts I don't want to
deal with, it'll likely be inconsistent and low volume; doesn't
make sense sending it to Linus directly for many reasons.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

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

[Jens Axboe]

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!

[1/1] io_uring: move zcrx into a separate branch
      commit: 6d136abdd1bdfce0c7108c8e0af6fd95e3d353ad

Best regards,
-- 
Jens Axboe