On 2024/4/9 23:11, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:25 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > . >
