Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 9:24 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:58:24PM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>
> > > > What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or
> > > > someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up
> > > > patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch
> > > > for somewhere else.
> > >
> > > I think that'd be me -- I typically do the static branch/call bits.
> >
> > Ah, thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > Are you ok with using the approach Steven suggested for STATIC
> > BRANCH/CALL subsystem too? That is, add a [RUST] entry below the
> > current one, list you and me as M:, and anyone else in the main entry
> > as R:, and patches land through the same tree as where they would have
> > landed if they were a C patch.
> >
> > I'm open to whichever setup you prefer, but I think it'd be nice to
> > get these files into MAINTAINERS somewhere.
>
> Yeah, I suppose that'll work. That [RUST] entry seems to be the
> predominant style in MAINTAINERS.
>
> My only concern is that most of the [RUST] entries don't actually
> include the F entries for the !rust part, which means that if the C bits
> change the Rust people aren't notified.
>
> So I would suggest having all F duplicated from the main entry and then
> add the rust files. Or, like we did with ATOMIC, just add you as M to
> the main entry, along with a few rust files.
Ok, that makes sense to me as well. Let's do that. Sending v2 now ...
> Some day I might actually learn enough to not see it as line noise :/
>
> See 2387fb2a9b84 ("rust: sync: Add basic atomic operation mapping framework")
>
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:58:24PM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or
> > > someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up
> > > patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch
> > > for somewhere else.
> >
> > I think that'd be me -- I typically do the static branch/call bits.
>
> Ah, thanks for the clarification.
>
> Are you ok with using the approach Steven suggested for STATIC
> BRANCH/CALL subsystem too? That is, add a [RUST] entry below the
> current one, list you and me as M:, and anyone else in the main entry
> as R:, and patches land through the same tree as where they would have
> landed if they were a C patch.
>
> I'm open to whichever setup you prefer, but I think it'd be nice to
> get these files into MAINTAINERS somewhere.
Yeah, I suppose that'll work. That [RUST] entry seems to be the
predominant style in MAINTAINERS.
My only concern is that most of the [RUST] entries don't actually
include the F entries for the !rust part, which means that if the C bits
change the Rust people aren't notified.
So I would suggest having all F duplicated from the main entry and then
add the rust files. Or, like we did with ATOMIC, just add you as M to
the main entry, along with a few rust files.
Some day I might actually learn enough to not see it as line noise :/
See 2387fb2a9b84 ("rust: sync: Add basic atomic operation mapping framework")
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:27:10PM +, Alice Ryhl wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:54:08AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:10:31 + > > > Alice Ryhl wrote: > > > > > > > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? > > > > > > > > Sure, we can do that. > > > > > > > > Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in > > > > case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as > > > > the initial tracepoint series did.) > > > > > > Yes. So I guess you can still add me with a 'M:'. But I wanted a separate > > > section so that all the Rust expertise is still included. > > > > What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or > > someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up > > patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch > > for somewhere else. > > I think that'd be me -- I typically do the static branch/call bits. Ah, thanks for the clarification. Are you ok with using the approach Steven suggested for STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem too? That is, add a [RUST] entry below the current one, list you and me as M:, and anyone else in the main entry as R:, and patches land through the same tree as where they would have landed if they were a C patch. I'm open to whichever setup you prefer, but I think it'd be nice to get these files into MAINTAINERS somewhere. Alice
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:27:10PM +, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:54:08AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:10:31 + > > Alice Ryhl wrote: > > > > > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? > > > > > > Sure, we can do that. > > > > > > Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in > > > case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as > > > the initial tracepoint series did.) > > > > Yes. So I guess you can still add me with a 'M:'. But I wanted a separate > > section so that all the Rust expertise is still included. > > What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or > someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up > patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch > for somewhere else. I think that'd be me -- I typically do the static branch/call bits.
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:54:08AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:10:31 + > Alice Ryhl wrote: > > > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? > > > > Sure, we can do that. > > > > Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in > > case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as > > the initial tracepoint series did.) > > Yes. So I guess you can still add me with a 'M:'. But I wanted a separate > section so that all the Rust expertise is still included. What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch for somewhere else. Alice
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:10:31 + Alice Ryhl wrote: > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? > > Sure, we can do that. > > Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in > case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as > the initial tracepoint series did.) Yes. So I guess you can still add me with a 'M:'. But I wanted a separate section so that all the Rust expertise is still included. -- Steve
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:11:40 +0100 Miguel Ojeda wrote: > There are several ways subsystems have gone about it: > > - Sometimes they may just add the people to the existing entry. > > - Sometimes they create sub-entries like you suggest (usually with > square brackets like " [RUST]" but there is also a " - RUST" used), > e.g. > > BLOCK LAYER DEVICE DRIVER API [RUST] > MEMORY MANAGEMENT - RUST > > - Sometimes they add them into the existing entry but with an added > "(RUST)" after their names, e.g. Boqun in LOCKING PRIMITIVES: > > M:Boqun Feng (LOCKDEP & RUST) OK, add "[RUST]" instead ;-) -- Steve
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 4:00 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I guess the question is are those with expertise on the list of people to > Cc? > > I think it may be better to have a separate section for RUST so that the > rust maintainers can be included in the M: part too. Perhaps: > > STATIC BRANCH/CALL (RUST) > > and > > TRACING (RUST) > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? There are several ways subsystems have gone about it: - Sometimes they may just add the people to the existing entry. - Sometimes they create sub-entries like you suggest (usually with square brackets like " [RUST]" but there is also a " - RUST" used), e.g. BLOCK LAYER DEVICE DRIVER API [RUST] MEMORY MANAGEMENT - RUST - Sometimes they add them into the existing entry but with an added "(RUST)" after their names, e.g. Boqun in LOCKING PRIMITIVES: M:Boqun Feng (LOCKDEP & RUST) Cheers, Miguel
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:00:06AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 19:36:29 +0100 > Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:32 PM Alice Ryhl wrote: > > > > > > I'm proposing to include them under the existing entries, as that seems > > > like the most obvious place to include them. However, there are multiple > > > ways to do this. If you prefer to have them elsewhere, I would also be > > > happy to create a new entry with me as maintaining them, or I'm also > > > willing to be listed as R: under the entry. Regardless of how we list > > > them in MAINTAINERS, I will be around if anything comes up. Let me know > > > what you all prefer. > > > > I think this was meant to go after the `---`? > > > > Whatever Steven et al. are happy with, this looks fine, thanks! > > > > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda > > > > I guess the question is are those with expertise on the list of people to > Cc? I would be on cc either way as RUST includes F: rust/. > I think it may be better to have a separate section for RUST so that the > rust maintainers can be included in the M: part too. Perhaps: > > STATIC BRANCH/CALL (RUST) > > and > > TRACING (RUST) > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? Sure, we can do that. Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as the initial tracepoint series did.) Alice
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 19:36:29 +0100 Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:32 PM Alice Ryhl wrote: > > > > I'm proposing to include them under the existing entries, as that seems > > like the most obvious place to include them. However, there are multiple > > ways to do this. If you prefer to have them elsewhere, I would also be > > happy to create a new entry with me as maintaining them, or I'm also > > willing to be listed as R: under the entry. Regardless of how we list > > them in MAINTAINERS, I will be around if anything comes up. Let me know > > what you all prefer. > > I think this was meant to go after the `---`? > > Whatever Steven et al. are happy with, this looks fine, thanks! > > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda > I guess the question is are those with expertise on the list of people to Cc? I think it may be better to have a separate section for RUST so that the rust maintainers can be included in the M: part too. Perhaps: STATIC BRANCH/CALL (RUST) and TRACING (RUST) And have the M of the other sections be R here? -- Steve
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:32 PM Alice Ryhl wrote: > > I'm proposing to include them under the existing entries, as that seems > like the most obvious place to include them. However, there are multiple > ways to do this. If you prefer to have them elsewhere, I would also be > happy to create a new entry with me as maintaining them, or I'm also > willing to be listed as R: under the entry. Regardless of how we list > them in MAINTAINERS, I will be around if anything comes up. Let me know > what you all prefer. I think this was meant to go after the `---`? Whatever Steven et al. are happy with, this looks fine, thanks! Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda Cheers, Miguel
