[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9nFo7broCoOSBzzaG1uHEK=Lch8vxhGCvqQj4xwWP0nXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:23:55 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 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>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rust: allocator_test: use `posix_memalign`
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 7:19 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:43 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm happy to wait for clarification, I'm just not sure whose court the
> > ball is in.
>
> Ideally Alejandro would clarify, who I Cc'd in the previous thread (he
> was not Cc'd here, by the way).
Sorry about that.
> Anyway, I agree with Danilo that we shouldn't overcomplicate just for
> this. Using the previous patch, but being clear about that we are
> using stricter requirements so that it works on macOS too, should be
> fine I think. But I trust Danilo to decide which approach is best for
> maintaining this.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
Seems there's consensus on the previous patch. I've reworded it and
will send it in v4 next week to allow Alejandro some time to weigh in.
Thanks.
Tamir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists