Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:58:24PM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:

> > > What about the STATIC BRANCH/CALL subsystem? Should I also leave you or
> > > someone else as 'M:' there? It's unclear to me who usually picks up
> > > patches for STATIC BRANCH/CALL when they are not a dependency to a patch
> > > for somewhere else.
> >
> > I think that'd be me -- I typically do the static branch/call bits.
> 
> Ah, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Are you ok with using the approach Steven suggested for STATIC
> BRANCH/CALL subsystem too? That is, add a [RUST] entry below the
> current one, list you and me as M:, and anyone else in the main entry
> as R:, and patches land through the same tree as where they would have
> landed if they were a C patch.
> 
> I'm open to whichever setup you prefer, but I think it'd be nice to
> get these files into MAINTAINERS somewhere.

Yeah, I suppose that'll work. That [RUST] entry seems to be the
predominant style in MAINTAINERS.

My only concern is that most of the [RUST] entries don't actually
include the F entries for the !rust part, which means that if the C bits
change the Rust people aren't notified.

So I would suggest having all F duplicated from the main entry and then
add the rust files. Or, like we did with ATOMIC, just add you as M to
the main entry, along with a few rust files.

Some day I might actually learn enough to not see it as line noise :/

See 2387fb2a9b84 ("rust: sync: Add basic atomic operation mapping framework")