Re: [PATCH V8 04/14] rust: Add cpumask helpers

Danilo Krummrich
2025-02-11T17:28:02Z

Hi Yury,

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:24:55AM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> + Jason, Christoph
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:59:08AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 10-02-25, 19:02, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:58:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > index ee6709599df5..bfc1bf2ebd77 100644
> > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > @@ -4021,6 +4021,7 @@ F: lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > > > F: lib/find_bit.c
> > > > F: lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> > > > F: lib/test_bitmap.c
> > > > +F: rust/helpers/cpumask.c
> > >
> > > Sorry what? I never committed to maintain this thing, and will
> > > definitely not do it for free.
> > >
> > > NAK.
> >
> > Okay.
>
> No, not Okay.
>
> To begin with, this is the 8th version of the same patch, but you
> only now bothered to CC someone who is listed in MAINTAINERS. This is
> not how the community works.

I'm answering, since I was involved in the discussion you refer to below, but
please also let me add a few other thoughts from my side.

First of all, I think you are right here.

AFAICS, the cpumask abstraction was added to this series in v6, and you were
CC'd in v8, which is *not* OK.

I also agree that this definitely deserves it's own series for you to be
properly involved.

> > I will add a separate entry for Rust cpumask stuff.
>
> That would make things even worse. Before you wanted me to maintain
> rust linkage. Now you want me to get approval from someone else who
> maintains rust linkage. In case I need to change something, I want to
> be able to just change.

I think the decision is up to you, whether

1) You want to maintain it on your own.
2) You want a co-maintainer / reviewer that takes care of the Rust parts.
3) You want nothing to do with it and have it maintained as a separate
component.

In case you prefer option 3), please do *not* see it as "you need to get
approval from someone else for code changes in your subsystem", because no ones
wants to impose this on you.

Please see it as just another driver or another component that makes use of the
API you maintain.

If you are running into API changes that affect the Rust abstraction, that's
where you can refer to the maintainer of the Rust abstraction to help out. Just
like with every other driver or component that uses a core API, which isn't
trivial to adjust.

>
> I went deeper into the subject, and found that rust team has similar
> problems with other maintainers:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250108122825.136021-3-abdiel.janulgue@gmail.com/

I don't think that this case is similar to the one you linked in. I think you
were indeed a bit bypassed here, plus you seem to have a real concern with
maintainership, which I think is fair to be addressed and resolved.

I hope my reply already helps with that.

- Danilo