On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:53:51PM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:50 PM Lorenzo Stoakes > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:32:27PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:14 PM Lorenzo Stoakes > > > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > the maintainers for the subsystem generally take series (though of course, > > > > it is entirely maintained and managed by rust people). > > > > > > Just in case: I am not sure what "rust people" means here, but if you > > > meant the Rust subsystem, then it is not the case. Maintenance depends > > > on what the subsystem wants to do (including how to handle patches, > > > but also the actual maintenance), who steps up to maintain it, whether > > > the subsystem wants new co-maintainers or sub-maintainers, etc. > > > > > > https://rust-for-linux.com/rust-kernel-policy#how-is-rust-introduced-in-a-subsystem > > > https://rust-for-linux.com/rust-kernel-policy#who-maintains-rust-code-in-the-kernel > > > > > > That is why the cover letter asks about the `MAINTAINERS` file. > > > > Right, I don't mean the rust subsystem, I mean designated rust > > maintainers. The point being that this won't add workload to Andrew, nor > > require him nor other mm C people to understand rust. > > > > As stated, I agree we need to add an entry to MAINTAINERS for this, which > > is why I explicitly chased this up. > > I am happy to be listed as a maintainer of this code. And based on my highly positive interactions with you and your clear depth of knowledge in rust + endlessly patient interactions with us mm C folk I for one am absolutely happy to endorse this + ack any such change to MAINTAINERS :) > > Alice >
