|SUCCESS| maintainers: update RISC-V maintainer

[dpdklab at iol.unh.edu]

Test-Label: ai-code-review
Test-Status: SUCCESS
https://dpdk.org/patch/162819

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-04-02

Commit: [git sha from patch header - 20260401192401.6243-1]
Author: Stanislaw Kardach <stanislaw.kardach at gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] maintainers: update RISC-V maintainer

This patch updates the RISC-V architecture maintainership by removing
Stanislaw Kardach and designating Sun Yuechi as the sole maintainer.

> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 0f5539f851..eeb55951b4 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -334,11 +334,10 @@ F: examples/*/*_altivec.*
>  F: examples/common/altivec/
>  
>  RISC-V
> -M: Stanislaw Kardach <stanislaw.kardach at gmail.com>
> +M: Sun Yuechi <sunyuechi at iscas.ac.cn>
>  F: config/riscv/
>  F: doc/guides/linux_gsg/cross_build_dpdk_for_riscv.rst
>  F: lib/eal/riscv/
> -M: Sun Yuechi <sunyuechi at iscas.ac.cn>
>  F: lib/**/*rvv*

Does the reordering here change the intent? The original structure had
Sun Yuechi listed as maintainer specifically for lib/**/*rvv* files,
while Stanislaw Kardach was listed for the broader RISC-V section. After
this change, Sun Yuechi becomes maintainer for all RISC-V files. Is this
the intended scope expansion, or should there be a distinction between
general RISC-V maintenance and RVV-specific files?

The MAINTAINERS file format typically associates the most recent M: line
with subsequent F: lines until another M: or section header appears.
Before this patch, there were effectively two maintainer scopes. After
the patch, all F: lines fall under a single maintainer. Can you confirm
this consolidation is intentional?