linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rust: virtio: add virtio support

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:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:19:36 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc:     wedsonaf@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rust: virtio: add virtio support

Hi Daniel,

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:14 PM Daniel Almeida
<daniel.almeida@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> Again a bit new with Rust submissions. I was told by Gary Guo to
> rebase on top of rust-next, but it seems *very* behind?

In general, prefer the most stable base you can find: Linus' tags if
possible, otherwise `rust-next` if you need something from there,
otherwise you may send something on top of some prerequisites that may
not have landed yet. Please see
https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#the-rust-subsystem for some
other details. `rust-next` is the latest Rust state (which at the
moment is just Linus' -rc1 -- did you need something that landed later
in mainline? In any case, tomorrow I will likely move it to -rc5 since
I will start merging).

> The first patch does not build on its own due to a dead_code warning.
> It is hard to not have dead code when one is adding infrastructure to be
> used by others at a later opportunity. Let me know if you would like to
> see the patches squashed into one to fix this.

Patches series must build between each patch. However, instead of
squashing, you may use `allow(dead_code)` to split patches as they
would normally be split. In other words, it is more important to have
patches more easily reviewable than avoiding an `allow` line.

Cheers,
Miguel