[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <reazaqddtuh42zpz5abgo6z3er5qre6qpbowqrwmrwsj76z32p@6xgeshmg3hkg>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:59:37 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, 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 10:30:03AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> I think the disagreement here is not non-generic atomic vs generic
> atomic, it's pure generic atomic vs. AtomicI{32,64} etc + generic
> atomic. I said multiple times that I'm OK with generic atomics if there
> are real users, just I'm not sure it's something we want to do right now
> (or we have enough information to go fully on that direction). And I
> think it's fine to have non-generic atomic and generic atomic coexist.
Well, having the generic interface from the start does matter, that's
what we (myself included) want to code to.
No need to overcomplicate it, just
Atomic<u8>
Atomic<u16>
etc...
As long as that's available, the internal implementation shouldn't have
to change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists