[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFR9Y12sSRGHvUZK@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 20:52:03 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
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>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gost.dev@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Rust null block driver
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:02:19PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> null_blk or not, it's more if we want to go down this path of
> maintaining rust bindings for the block code in general. If the answer
> to that is yes, then doing null_blk seems like a great choice as it's
> not a critical piece of infrastructure. It might even be a good idea to
> be able to run both, for performance purposes, as the bindings or core
> changes.
Yes. And I'm not in favor of it, especially right now. There is
so much work we need to do that requires changes all over (e.g.
sorting out the request_queue vs gendisk, and making the bio_vec
folio or even better physical address based), and the last thing I
need is a binding to a another language, one that happens to have
nice features but that also is really ugly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists