linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] rust: error: Add from_kernel

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

Message-ID: <Y/zWL4aeIRbvwKMI@boqun-archlinux>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:11:27 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
        Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, asahi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] rust: error: Add from_kernel_result!() macro

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 01:10:39PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:13 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting, sounds like a missing feature in `rustfmt` or maybe we
> > don't use the correct config ;-)
> 
> It may be coming [1] (I haven't tested if that one would work for us),
> but in general it is hard for `rustfmt` because the contents are not
> necessarily valid Rust code.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5538
> 
> > "Yeah" means they have different behaviors, right? ;-)
> 
> Yes, sorry for the confusion :)
> 

No worries, English is the one to blame ;-)

> > Thanks for finding an example! Means we did use return.
> >
> > For this particular API, I'd say function right now, `try` blocks if
> > avaiable.
> 
> Do you mean going with the closure for the time being and `try` blocks
> when they become stable? Yeah, I think that is a fair approach.
> 

Right, and like my original suggestion to Lina, don't use macro for this
one.

Regards,
Boqun

> Cheers,
> Miguel