[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72k9S+E-Rfym0fPCrL7qjJR4xQLcjniEGfuVhA7v3Dx2Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:47:18 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Oliver Mangold <oliver.mangold@...me>, 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>, Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] rust: adding OwnableRefCounted and SimpleOwnableRefCounted
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:58 PM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Another possibility is to make the allow conditional.
That sounds fine to me -- we would lose checking for those not in the
latest version, but we would catch the mistakes on our side
eventually.
The advantage of using the `allow` is mostly less churn later on, and
perhaps fewer mistakes due to that. In terms of lines, it would still
be the same since they are single lines.
Oliver: I am sending a quick patch explaining this -- please feel free
to pick it up in your series.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists