linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rust: irq: add support for request

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: <87o6yhgd4c.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 14:05:23 +0100
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: "Christian Schrefl" <chrisi.schrefl@...il.com>,  <ojeda@...nel.org>,
  <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,  <boqun.feng@...il.com>,  <gary@...yguo.net>,
  <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,  <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
  <tmgross@...ch.edu>,  <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()

"Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com> writes:

> Hi Christian,
>
>> On 23 Jan 2025, at 13:00, Christian Schrefl <chrisi.schrefl@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 22.01.25 5:39 PM, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>>> Add support for registering IRQ handlers in Rust.

[...]

>>> +/// The flags that can be used when registering an IRQ handler.
>>> +pub mod flags {
>>
>> Maybe move flags into a separate file?
>> You even have a directory for irq.
>
> Why? Most flags are defined in the same file. See alloc::flags, for example.
>
> I am not against this, but since this is merely aesthetic in nature, we should maybe
> wait for input from more people.

I would prefer them in another file as well. Not a hard requirement though.

[...]

>>> +///     // This will run (in a separate kthread) iff `handle_irq` returns
>> typo iff
>
> I mean the acronym for “if and only if”.

Since it is not immediately obvious to all readers, prefer "if and only
if". I think we discussed this at pin-init patches a long while ago.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg