On 10/22/25 8:25 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:

On 10/22/25 14:17, Jens Axboe wrote:

quoted

On 10/22/25 5:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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.

The netdev side has been pretty explicit on wanting a MAINTAINERS entry

Can you point out where that was requested dated before the series in
question? Because as far as I know, only CC'ing was mentioned and
only as a question, for which I proposed a fairly standard way of
dealing with it by introducing API and agreeing on any changes to that,
and got no reply. Even then, I was CC'ing netdev for changes that might
be interesting to netdev, that includes the blocked series.

Not interested in digging out those other discussions, but Mina had a
patch back in August, and there was the previous discussion on the big
patchset. At least I very much understood it as netdev wanting to be
CC'ed, and the straight forward way to always have that is to make it
explicit in MAINTAINERS.

quoted

so that they see changes. I don't think it's unreasonable to have that,
and it doesn't mean that they need to ack things that are specific to
zcrx. Nobody looks at all the various random lists, giving them easier
insight is a good thing imho. I think we all agree on that.

Absent that change, it's also not unreasonable for that side to drag
their feet a bit on further changes. Could the communication have been
better on that side? Certainly yes. But it's hard to blame them too much
on that front, as any response would have predictably yielded an
accusatory reply back.

Not really, solely depends on the reply.

Well, statistically based on recent and earlier replies in those
threads, if I was on that side, I'd say that would be a fair assumption.

quoted

And honestly, nobody wants to deal with that, if

Understandable, but you're making it sound like I started by
throwing accusations and not the other way around. But it's
true that I never wanted to deal with it.

Honestly I don't even know where this all started, but it hasn't been
going swimmingly the last few months would be my assessment.

My proposal is to put all of this behind us and move forward in a
productive manner. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from
continuing down the existing path of arguing about who did what and why,
and frankly I have zero inclination to participate in that. It should be
in everybody's best interest to move forward, productively. And if that
starts with a simple MAINTAINERS entry, that seems like a good place to
start. So _please_, can we do that?

-- 
Jens Axboe