From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2255F156865; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712750176; cv=none; b=c7nHSpUpijhGK9zG1a8qUTFHtzfyUMCShh42oiguAL3HuinkOHUxEwSE1h6IGB4CbN4d0t5L4ki7GGlhTryzaF+r/bZ5PSnG0tICTGc9iBdPqs3sIN3GKo72tcZDEjRrykGxXYCiJl22qpboCG+8+4tUEXKFIL8g1r51u97d820= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712750176; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QOyaJy+CNi6R9607nxZfxgMXDaD6rr1ppov0JOl34z0=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=HkXeZ7a7B+OOphAFY1p6NrnUErFu1a3MzLFw9QRibRq1XeXSICIMzCp2xeRdmeC/JerMLdJqcu62RJJ5wCm4mJx74LnJ4PD0jFuQRNOcITMIeZnYUkBksWqsp3gkGSI8O4izkOYPZb8QLxvH4BK9HWGx1lMwO0+ElxMaaCIWxeo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.112]) by szxga07-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VF1Rz0bmjz1RC7s; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:53:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.74]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C4CA14037E; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:56:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.69.30.204] (10.69.30.204) by dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:56:11 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 12/12] mm: page_frag: update documentation and maintainer for page_frag To: Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski CC: , , , , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , , References: <20240407130850.19625-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20240407130850.19625-13-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <09d7d59b-9da3-52f7-b039-acd0344c88c8@huawei.com> <20240409062504.26cfcdde@kernel.org> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:56:10 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) On 2024/4/9 23:11, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:25 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> >> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:59:58 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> Just to be clear this isn't an Ack, but if you are going to list >>>> maintainers for this my name should be on the list so this is the >>>> preferred format. There are still some things to be cleaned up in this >>>> patch. >>> >>> Sure, I was talking about "Alexander seems to be the orginal author for >>> page_frag, we can add him to the MAINTAINERS later if we have an ack from >>> him." in the commit log. >> >> Do we have to have a MAINTAINERS entry for every 1000 lines of code? Do we have something like rule or guidance against that? Looking at the entry in MAINTAINERS, it seems quite normal to me, I thouht it is generally encourage someone with willing and ability to be a maintainer/reviewer. Considering you have refused adding me as the reviewer of page_pool despite the support from two maintainers of page_pool, for the season of something like below: 'page pool is increasingly central to the whole networking stack. The bar for "ownership" is getting higher and higher..' I think I might need a second opinion here. >> It really feels forced :/ I am not a native english speaker here, I would rather not comment on the 'forced' part here and focus more on the technical disscusion. > > I don't disagree. However, if nothing else I think it gets used as a > part of get_maintainers.pl that tells you who to email about changes > doesn't it? It might make sense in my case since I am still > maintaining it using my gmail account, but I think the commits for > that were mostly from my Intel account weren't they? So if nothing > else it might be a way to provide a trail of breadcrumbs on how to > find a maintainer who changed employers.. +1. I generally pay more attention to the patch that is to'ed or cc'ed to my email when I am overloaded with other work. > . >