On 2024/10/29 22:33, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:40:08 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2024/10/29 7:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:58:50 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> +M: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Why is this line still here? You asked for a second opinion >>> and you got one from Paolo. >> >> Because of the reason below? >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/159495c8-71be-4a11-8c49-d528e8154841@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > What is the reason in that link? You try to argue that the convention > doesn't exist or that your case is different? The maintainer tells you > their opinion in context of the posting. I just argue that it seems natural and reasonable that someone being willing and able to turn page_frag into a subsystem or library might become the co-maintainer if she/he is also willing to co-maintain it. > > It seems like you're more motivated by getting into MAINTAINERS than > by the work itself :/ For the 'MAINTAINERS ' part, I guess we all want some acknowledge in some way for the work if that is the 'motivated ' you are referring to. For the 'work itself' part, my previous work of supporting frag API, unifying frag & non-frag API for page_pool, removing page frag implementation in vhost_net and recent trying of fixing IOMMU crash problem all seem to be motivated more by getting into MAINTAINERS in your eyes? With all due respect, it would be good to have less of speculation like above and focus on more technical discussion.
