[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH5fLgg8KSNLrAUsFHTceVA0Zp3gUCP5yjawXN_3SuOR5Y4Gig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 11:41:29 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] rust: std_vendor: simplify `{ .. macro! .. }` with
inner attributes
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:27 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:19 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are we ok with changing std_vendor?
>
> Yeah, to some degree, i.e. the code is already adapted slightly (it is
> not intended to be a 1:1 copy). As long as we keep it more or less in
> sync with upstream, it should be fine.
>
> Even if we had to diverge, it should not be a big deal, but it would
> be nice to be able to pick up improvements if any, e.g. there is `let
> else` being used now upstream, which we could replicate (I will create
> a "good first issue" for that).
>
> (These allows/expects are not there in the original anyway, for that reason)
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists