linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: `make rust-analyzer` for out-of-tree modules

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]

Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:55:27 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Vinay Varma <varmavinaym@...il.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, alicef@...cef.me,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: `make rust-analyzer` for out-of-tree modules

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:28 PM Vinay Varma <varmavinaym@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, got caught up with another project and lost track of this thread.
> I have updated the patch and replied to some of the threads inline.

No problem -- thanks!

Note that we may need a rebase after
https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20230307120736.75492-1-nmi@metaspace.dk/
(or equivalent) lands in `rust-fixes`. So perhaps wait for that, then
rebase (especially if we go with the EAFP style), and then others may
want to give it a spin for a re-test.

When you rebase, please consider putting `f"{name}.o"` inside the
function to avoid repetition, and perhaps consider inverting the
condition to avoid indenting the file further (and reducing the diff).
It makes the "Skip ..." comment more understandable (otherwise, you
may want to change the comment to "Only process ..." or similar
instead of using "Skip ...").

Cheers,
Miguel