linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: query the compiler for dylib path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72k=+iUEESsiv8JUYehEFjoK=hUae3kbddyb3+qaJofpAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:17:20 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, 
	Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@...cle.com>, 
	Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>, 
	Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>, 
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, 
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: query the compiler for dylib path

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 4:48 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Understood. My guess is nobody will care about the process spawn in
> scripts/generate_rust_analyzer.py. Someone might care about the one in
> rust/Makefile, but there are already 4 others. By the way, I notice those are

Yeah, I was referring to the `Makefile` one (the other one, indeed,
does not matter, as you say).

> using $(shell ...) - should I be using that form as well?

Hmm... I assume you tested the patch, but how would the patch work
without it? Or am I confused?

> I guess that's not for me to say. It would be great to have basic automation.

Generally, when submitting a new feature for upstream, especially one
that requires new testing, it is common that the submitter is asked to
take care of it or help doing so. I guess, in this case, Daniel is the
one handling the macOS support out-of-tree.

Anyway, we may need to use variables for this, so I think it is fine
-- upstream can keep the variable working easily, and out-of-tree can
test the overall macOS support.

> My apologies for the oversight.

No worries, thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel