[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=uiCS6nyissb3ugiyniwnZYu5kCf4+bp32dDzRhgGfCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:32:28 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
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>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: Add initial cpumask abstractions
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 17:23, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> Is it a problem if a value of type struct cpumask is moved? It looks
> like it is just an array of longs?
With the current code, if I replace the Box with an on-stack variable,
the kernel crashes.
In my usecase, the pointer to the cpumask array is sent to the OPP
core, which may update the content, though it doesn't save the pointer.
But for another usecase, the C code may end up saving the pointer.
--
Viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists