RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE

["Guo, Junfeng" <junfeng.guo@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 18:35
> To: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; rushilg@google.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>; Rushil
> Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Joshua Washington
> <joshwash@google.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE
> 
> On 3/28/2023 11:00 AM, Guo, Junfeng wrote:
> > + Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 17:45
> >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> >> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; ferruh.yigit@amd.com; Xing, Beilei
> >> <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE
> >>
> >> Add maintainers from Google for GVE.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  MAINTAINERS | 3 +++
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> >> index 1a33ad8592..988c7aecfa 100644
> >> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >> @@ -714,6 +714,9 @@ F: doc/guides/nics/features/enic.ini
> >>
> >>  Google Virtual Ethernet
> >>  M: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> >> +M: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
> >> +M: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
> >> +M: Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>
> >>  F: drivers/net/gve/
> >>  F: doc/guides/nics/gve.rst
> >>  F: doc/guides/nics/features/gve.ini
> 
> 
> New maintainers were not part of the upstreaming process, so we don't
> know much about the engagement and commitment level of them.
> 
> However, as far as I understand they are the base code owners, which
> means we can trust their technical expertise that is why good to have
> them on board.
> 
> 
> Primarily for due diligence, would it be OK to get explicit Ack from the
> new maintainers, to confirm they are aware of and agree to the
> responsibilities they are accepting?

Sure, that make sense. Thanks for your concern!

As you see, we have sent out the RFC code in past two months.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=27056&state=*
Part of the code (e.g., base code update) are contributed by Google
 team (also shown in the commit message Signed-off-by part).

At this point, as DPDK 23.07 window is coming. We decide to refine
the RFC code and upsteam them at this coming release.

To make things easier, this patch set is the first part to be upstream-ed.
This patch set mainly contains the license and copyright holders update.
And the following patch set for GVE enhancement will coming before
the V1 window.

So we may need your help to review this in advance and even get this
merged first. Thanks again for your careful review!