[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240429132415.3039940d@eugeo>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:24:15 +0100
From: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng
<boqun.feng@...il.com>, Björn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: init: add re-initialization functions
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:34:44 +0000
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
> Sometimes it is necessary to split allocation and initialization into
> two steps. One such situation is when reusing existing allocations
> obtained via `Box::drop_contents`. See [1] for an example.
> In order to support this use case add `re_[pin_]init` functions to the
> pin-init API. These functions operate on already allocated smart
> pointers that contain `MaybeUninit<T>`.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/f026532f-8594-4f18-9aa5-57ad3f5bc592@proton.me/ [1]
I don't find the re_init name very intuitive. From the name I would
imagine these functions be taking a `Box<T>` and a `impl Init<T, E>`,
dropping the content and produces a `Box<T>` again.
Would it make more to rename the existing functions to have `new` in
their name to indiciate that they allocate, e.g. `pin_new`, and have
these functions that only does initialisation `init`/`pin_init`?
Best,
Gary
Powered by blists - more mailing lists