[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72nsSOaG=WhGP5GUQ=ygCh23iDQBc0kgjRP3B5MoF0CUjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:03:21 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
wedsonaf@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, a.hindborg@...sung.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, daniel.almeida@...labora.com,
faith.ekstrand@...labora.com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
lina@...hilina.net, mcanal@...lia.com, zhiw@...dia.com, cjia@...dia.com,
jhubbard@...dia.com, airlied@...hat.com, ajanulgu@...hat.com,
lyude@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/26] rust: alloc: implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc`
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:00 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> If we keep them, we'd consequently also need to add them for vrealloc() and
> kvrealloc(). But again, they don't do anything for us, and hence are more
> misleading than helpful IMO.
In general, they could do something (e.g. `noreturn`), perhaps in the future.
Apart from being potentially misleading, do we gain something by
removing them? I guess simplicity in the file, but it is also simpler
to keep them aligned to the C side (which I guess is Alice's point),
and avoids having to keep track of what could have a present or future
impact in `bindgen`.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists