[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANeycqqwGE_eyFSDWkmHCBOMZ6+Ty-XK_hKixMtOYqc9_46j2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:50:58 -0300
From: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: mathys35.gasnier@...il.com, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: locks: Add `get_mut` method to `Lock`
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 11:22, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:13 PM Mathys-Gasnier via B4 Relay
> <devnull+mathys35.gasnier.gmail.com@...nel.org> wrote:
> > + /// Gets the data contained in the lock
> > + /// Having a mutable reference to the lock guarantees that no other threads have access to the lock.
> > + /// Making it safe to get a mutable reference to the lock content.
> > + pub fn get_mut(&mut self) -> &mut T {
> > + self.data.get_mut()
> > + }
>
> It's impossible to call this method. You can never have a mutable
> reference to a Linux mutex because we pin our locks. At most, you can
> have a Pin<&mut Self>.
Perhaps you meant to say that it's impossible to call this method
without unsafe blocks? From a `Pin<&mut T>`, we can call
`get_unchecked_mut` to get an `&mut T`.
This is addressing issue 924 opened by Björn some time back. The idea
here is that if there's a path where avoiding the lock/unlock calls
(which are expensive because of the memory barriers) is performance
critical, we can do it as long as we use an unsafe block.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists