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:

quoted

quoted

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")