[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zm8bQktx4D-3glG5@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:05:06 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, elver@...gle.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, dakr@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:46:45AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
[...]
> > To me, it's perfectly fine that Atomic{I32,I64} co-exist with Atomic<T>.
> > What's the downside? A bit specific example would help me understand
> > the real concern here.
>
> I don't like that, why have two ways of doing the same thing? People
> will be confused whether they should use `AtomicI32` vs `Atomic<i32>`...
>
BTW, we already have something similar like this in kernel, we have
SpinLock<T> and Lock<T, SpinLockBackend>, how should we do about this?
Regards,
Boqun
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists