[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CD29DF8F-7FF3-466F-9724-BC92C14A68BD@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 15:18:20 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] doc: rust: create safety standard
> On 19 Jul 2024, at 14:28, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 6:24 PM Daniel Almeida
> <daniel.almeida@...labora.com> wrote:
>>
>> A new clippy lint would make sense here, since we already have clippy support
>> in the kernel anyways.
>
> There is one already, which we want to enable.
>
> Here is a quick patch (untested!) of how it could look like, in case
> one wants to fill the TODOs, or we can just merge it as-is and clean
> it up later to avoid adding new ones.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
> <0001-rust-enable-clippy-undocumented_unsafe_blocks.patch>
IMHO, merging after testing makes sense, otherwise new ones will creep up as you said.
— Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists