[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72kS8=1R-0yoGP5wwNT2XKSwofjfvXMk2qLZkO9z_QQzXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:45:02 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Alistair Francis <alistair@...stair23.me>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas@...ner.de,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, wilfred.mallawa@....com,
ojeda@...nel.org, alistair23@...il.com, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
tmgross@...ch.edu, gary@...yguo.net, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
benno.lossin@...ton.me, Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/20] PCI/CMA: Expose in sysfs whether devices are authenticated
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 1:01 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry, you are right, it does, and of course it happens (otherwise how
> would bindings work), but for small functions like this, how is the C
> code kept in sync with the rust side? Where is the .h file that C
> should include?
What you were probably remembering is that it still needs to be
justified, i.e. we don't want to generally/freely start replacing
"individual functions" and doing FFI both ways everywhere, i.e. the
goal is to build safe abstractions wherever possible.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists