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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH5fLggpBodWYv2EQy5sgg5eSp9=7PM9ZqXcKaTuozNKN1eGGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:58:24 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, 
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add Rust files to STATIC BRANCH/CALL and TRACING

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:37 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:27:10PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:54:08AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:10:31 +0000
> > > Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > And have the M of the other sections be R here?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, we can do that.
> > > >
> > > > Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in
> > > > case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as
> > > > the initial tracepoint series did.)
> > >
> > > Yes. So I guess you can still add me with a 'M:'. But I wanted a separate
> > > section so that all the Rust expertise is still included.
> >
> > 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.

Alice