linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/13] rust: hrtimer: introduce hrtimer support

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

Message-ID: <87wmdctrx4.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 20:41:27 +0100
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,  "Miguel Ojeda"
 <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,  "Anna-Maria Behnsen"
 <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,  "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
  "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...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>,
  "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>,
  "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/13] rust: hrtimer: introduce hrtimer support

"Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@...nel.org> writes:

> Le Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 08:52:35PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg a écrit :
>> > It's of course up to hrtimer maintainers. But I personally nack this
>> > kconfig, because it's not necessary, and hrtimer API has been stable for
>> > a while.
>>
>> Having the switch is fine for me, removing it is fine as well. It's just
>> an added convenience that might come in handy. But having this kconfig
>> very close to zero overhead, so I do not really understand your
>> objection. I would like to better understand your reasoning.
>
> If you choose to make a such a Kconfig switch, it would only make sense
> in order to spare some bytes when no drivers use it for example. But if
> you're afraid that the Rust binding is on the way while the core is
> changing some API then I guess simply disabling Rust would be enough for
> testing.
>
> I don't think it's necessary (unless it's strictly selected by drivers).
> But it's your call.

I that case, I will drop it. Thanks for chiming in.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg