[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zl4KgPuFn9HSmXen@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 11:25:04 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Matt Gilbride <mattgilbride@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...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>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] rust: rbtree: add mutable iterator
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:52:36PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:42 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:05:19PM +0000, Matt Gilbride wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +/// A mutable iterator over the nodes of a [`RBTree`].
> > > +///
> > > +/// Instances are created by calling [`RBTree::iter_mut`].
> > > +pub struct IterMut<'a, K, V> {
> > > + _tree: PhantomData<&'a mut RBTree<K, V>>,
> > > + iter_raw: IterRaw<K, V>,
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +// SAFETY: The [`RBTreeIterator`] gives out mutable references to K and V, so it has the same
> >
> > s/RBTreeIterator/IterMut ?
> >
> > Also `IterMut` doesn't give out mutable references to K, which makes
> > me think...
> >
> > > +// thread safety requirements as mutable references.
> > > +unsafe impl<'a, K: Send, V: Send> Send for IterMut<'a, K, V> {}
> > > +
> >
> > we can lose the constrains to `K: Sync`, right?
>
> Either Send or Sync would be valid here, but almost all types that are
> Sync are also Send, but the opposite is not the case. So I wouldn't
> consider that to be loosening the constrain.
>
You are probably right. But it's a bit pity that we miss the `Sync` +
`!Send` case :-/
Regards,
Boqun
> Alice
Powered by blists - more mailing lists