[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zfifedc4.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:39:39 +0100
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Anna-Maria Behnsen"
<anna-maria@...utronix.de>, "Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Danilo Krummrich"
<dakr@...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>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Trevor
Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Lyude Paul" <lyude@...hat.com>, "Guangbo
Cui" <2407018371@...com>, "Dirk Behme" <dirk.behme@...il.com>, "Daniel
Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Tamir Duberstein"
<tamird@...il.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Timothy G."
<c6qchwbke@...ay.firefox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/14] rust: hrtimer: add `HrTimerMode`
"Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@...ton.me> writes:
> On 21.02.25 10:17, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> "Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@...ton.me> writes:
>>
>>> On 18.02.25 14:27, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>>> +/// Operational mode of [`HrTimer`].
>>>> +#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
>>>> +pub enum HrTimerMode {
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + Absolute,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + Relative,
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + Pinned,
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in soft irq context.
>>>> + Soft,
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in hard irq context.
>>>> + Hard,
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + AbsolutePinned,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + RelativePinned,
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in soft irq context.
>>>> + AbsoluteSoft,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in soft irq context.
>>>> + RelativeSoft,
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in soft irq context.
>>>> + AbsolutePinnedSoft,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in soft irq context.
>>>> + RelativePinnedSoft,
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in hard irq context.
>>>> + AbsoluteHard,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in hard irq context.
>>>> + RelativeHard,
>>>> + /// Timer expires at the given expiration time.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in hard irq context.
>>>> + AbsolutePinnedHard,
>>>> + /// Timer expires after the given expiration time interpreted as a duration from now.
>>>> + /// Timer does not move between CPU cores.
>>>> + /// Timer handler is executed in hard irq context.
>>>> + RelativePinnedHard,
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> At some point we probably want to move this to bitfields, or do you
>>> think it's better to keep it like this?
>>
>> Yes, eventually the would transition. The main difficulty is that not
>> all flag combinations are legal, and the zero value is also a flag.
>> There was some promising work being shared on Zulip for this [1], but I
>> don't think it is completed yet. Added Timothy to CC.
>>
>> [1] https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/291565-Help/topic/Best.20way.20to.20handle.20enum.2Fflags.20situation
>
> Ah yeah I remember that. And also the complication about certain
> combinations not being allowed.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +impl From<HrTimerMode> for bindings::hrtimer_mode {
>>>> + fn from(value: HrTimerMode) -> Self {
>>>> + use bindings::*;
>>>> + match value {
>>>> + HrTimerMode::Absolute => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::Relative => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::Pinned => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_PINNED,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::Soft => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_SOFT,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::Hard => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_HARD,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::AbsolutePinned => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::RelativePinned => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::AbsoluteSoft => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_SOFT,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::RelativeSoft => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::AbsolutePinnedSoft => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED_SOFT,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::RelativePinnedSoft => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED_SOFT,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::AbsoluteHard => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::RelativeHard => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::AbsolutePinnedHard => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED_HARD,
>>>> + HrTimerMode::RelativePinnedHard => hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED_HARD,
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +impl From<HrTimerMode> for u64 {
>>>> + fn from(value: HrTimerMode) -> Self {
>>>> + Into::<bindings::hrtimer_mode>::into(value) as u64
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Hmm do drivers really need these impls? If not, then you could also just
>>> have a private function that does the conversion and use it only in the
>>> abstraction layer.
>>
>> Similar to the other impls you commented on, I can move them private. I
>> would prefer using `From` rather than some other function.
>
> What's the reason for you preferring `From`? I don't think it's
> important to forbid access from the drivers, but if it's unnecessary,
> why would we give them access in the first place?
TIL trait implementations cannot be hidden. I like `From` because every
single rust developer seeing a `From` implementation will immediately know
what it does. It is more idiomatic in that way than having another
conversion function. I think using existing traits with well defined
semantics is preferable to a local function.
But since driver implementer do not need it, I'm undecided. If you want
them converted to a private function I can do that, for all the ones you
called out. But I am also OK with keeping as is. You decide.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists