Message-ID: <52a6f5d6-ce59-45a8-9271-5c6248d5b90d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:04:21 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 sdf@...ichev.me, almasrymina@...gle.com, dw@...idwei.uk,
 michael.chan@...adcom.com, dtatulea@...dia.com, ap420073@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/23][pull request] Queue configs and large
 buffer providers

On 8/21/25 02:37, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:39:51 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 8/20/25 03:31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 14:57:16 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Jakub Kicinski (20):
>>>
>>> I think we need to revisit how we operate.
>>> When we started the ZC work w/ io-uring I suggested a permanent shared
>>> branch. That's perhaps an overkill. What I did not expect is that you
>>> will not even CC netdev@ on changes to io_uring/zcrx.*
>>>
>>> I don't mean to assert any sort of ownership of that code, but you're
>>> not meeting basic collaboration standards for the kernel. This needs
>>> to change first.
>>
>> You're throwing quite allegations. Basic collaboration standards don't
>> include spamming people with unrelated changes via an already busy list.
>> I cc'ed netdev on patches that meaningfully change how it interacts
>> (incl indirectly) with netdev and/or might be of interest, which is
>> beyond of the usual standard expected of a project using infrastructure
>> provided by a subsystem.
> 
> To me iouring is a fancy syscall layer. It's good at its job, sure,
> but saying that netdev provides infrastructure to a syscall layer is
> laughable.

?

>> There are pieces that don't touch netdev, like
>> how io_uring pins pages, accounts memory, sets up rings, etc. In the
>> very same way generic io_uring patches are not normally posted to
>> netdev, and netdev patches are not redirected to mm because there
>> are kmalloc calls, even though, it's not even the standard used here.
> 
> I'm asking you to CC netdev, and people who work on ZC like Mina.
> Normal reaction to someone asking to be CCed on patches is "Sure."
> I don't understand what you're afraid of.

Normal reaction is to ask to CC and not attempt to slander as you
just did. That's not appreciated. All that cherry topped with a
signal that you're not going to take my work until I learn how to
read your mind.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/bcf5a9e8-5014-44cc-85a0-2974e3039cb6@gmail.com/

When you brought this topic before, I fully outlined what I believe
would be a good workflow, and since there was no answer, I've been
sticking to it. And let me note, you didn't directly and clearly
ask to CC netdev. And I'm pretty sure, ignoring messages and
smearing is not in the spirit of the "basic collaboration standards",
whatever those are.

>> If you have some way you want to work, I'd appreciate a clear
>> indication of that, because that message you mentioned was answered
>> and I've never heard any objection, or anything else really.
> 
> It honestly didn't cross my mind that you'd only CC netdev on patches
> which touch code under net/. I'd have let you know sooner but it's hard

If you refer to the directory, that's clearly not true.

> to reply to messages one doesn't see. I found out that there's whole
> bunch of ZC work that landed in iouring from talking to David Wei.

The linked thread above indicates the opposite. 	

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists