[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=G+JdHiLovGv=5Yi_7smyrinWFfEQH31x=KPP4=nKKGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:38:56 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>,
Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] Kbuild: Rust support
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 6:24 AM Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
>
> My concern was to know what field to look at to reliably detect an error
> from the C side after a sequence doing C -> Rust -> C when the inner C
> code uses NULL to mark an error and the upper C code uses NULL as a valid
> value and needs to look at an error code instead to rebuild a result. But
I see, thanks for clarifying. I don't think we want to change anything
on either of the C sides (at least for the foreseeable future). So the
Rust code in-between must respect whatever conventions both C sides
already use, even if they happen to be different on each side.
Thus the C side will not know there was a `Result` inside the Rust
side and so it does not need to worry about which field to look at.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists