Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring zcrx: add MAINTAINERS entry

On 10/21/25 21:29, David Wei wrote:

Same as [1] but also with netdev@ as an additional mailing list.
io_uring zero copy receive is of particular interest to netdev
participants too, given its tight integration to netdev core.

David, I can guess why you sent it, but it doesn't address the bigger
problem on the networking side. Specifically, why patches were blocked
due to a rule that had not been voiced before and remained blocked even
after pointing this out? And why accusations against me with the same
circumstances, which I equate to defamation, were left as is without
any retraction? To avoid miscommunication, those are questions to Jakub
and specifically about the v3 of the large buffer patchset without
starting a discussion here on later revisions.

Without that cleared, considering that compliance with the new rule
was tried and lead to no results, this behaviour can only be accounted
to malice, and it's hard to see what cooperation is there to be had as
there is no indication Jakub is going to stop maliciously blocking
my work.

In general, if I'm as a patch submitter asked to follow rules, it's
only natural to assume there is a process and rules maintainers keep to
as well. And I'd believe that includes unbiased treatment and technical
merit rather than decision based on mood of the day.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov