[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=P3O5Q=S4JBVGY0B0t5xSfMYGu3YbhT6SQmbVcAkEA8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 13:19:04 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...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 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).
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists