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

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

On 10/20/25 19:34, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> 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.

To get some clarity, are you going to pick it up?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov