linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9kKtGkBmjQCfM-idP6uYas_wOqMq7q-oPxZ=+MkS8XVqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:12:48 -0400
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 2:20 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:33 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would be happy to add the relevant details to the commit message but
> > this is one citation that I haven't been able to locate. The closest
> > mention I could find[0] only vaguely mentions that this change was
> > made, but does not reference a commit (and certainly not an RFC).
>
> In Boqun's first link, there is a reference to the nomicon with
> details, and the section:
>
>     https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/phantom-data.html#generic-parameters-and-drop-checking
>
> explains the change, including:
>
>     "But ever since RFC 1238, this is no longer true nor necessary."
>
> There was another RFC (1327) after that, for a finer-grained approach
> (`may_dangle`). The name of the feature gate was also changed.
>
> Anyway, I don't think we need to add any of that to the commit message
> though. Perhaps linking the latest RFC is good for context, so if you
> think it is a good idea, of course please go for it -- but in case you
> are referring to what I said, I didn't say that we should add the RFC
> bits into the commit message.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Thanks a lot for all the hand-holding here. I think the sensible thing
to do here is to add a comment rather than remove the PhantomData.
I'll send that as v2 shortly if no-one objects.