On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:20:54PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Tue Oct 7, 2025 at 7:42 PM JST, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 12:36 PM Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> We can assume maintainership of this of course, but is there a problem > >> if this falls under the core Rust umbrella? As this is a pretty core > >> functionality. Miguel and other core folks, WDYT? > > > > I think what Yury may mean is that this should get an explicit > > `MAINTAINERS` subentry even if it falls under `rust/kernel/` -- I > > agree that is a good idea.
Exactly. Otherwise we'll end up with a single maintainer for a huge codebase written by different people for different reasons. This is how lib/ is maintained now. Not very effective. > Ack - how do you expect things to work in terms of code flow? Do we need > to have a dedicated tree and send you pull requests? If so, should we > host it under the Rust-for-Linux Github org? (Not sure you've asked me but anyways) For maintenance hierarchy I'd suggest a structure where an author of the new subsystem obviously becomes a maintainer, then some acknowledged Rust person co-maintains it, and lately some non-rust person from a related kernel subsystem becomes a reviewer or co-maintainer. In 6.18 we did this for bitmaps, and the maintenance entry looks like: BITMAP API [RUST] M: Alice Ryhl <[email protected]> M: Burak Emir <[email protected]> R: Yury Norov <[email protected]> S: Maintained F: rust/kernel/bitmap.rs Check 11eca92a2cae ("rust: add bitmap API"). Thanks, Yury
