On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 9:24 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ok, that makes sense to me as well. Let's do that. Sending v2 now ...
> Some day I might actually learn enough to not see it as line noise :/
>
> See 2387fb2a9b84 ("rust: sync: Add basic atomic operation mapping framework")
>
