linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rust: device: implement device context marker

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: <67d46c0a.050a0220.30a410.8bef@mx.google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:48:54 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rust: device: implement device context marker

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 06:31:48PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 05:09:05PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > Some bus device functions should only be called from bus callbacks,
> > > such as probe(), remove(), resume(), suspend(), etc.
> > > 
> > > To ensure this add device context marker structs, that can be used as
> > > generics for bus device implementations.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> > > Suggested-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> > 
> > Try chronological order for the tags? It was suggested first and then
> > reviewed.
> 
> Is that a thing? When I apply patches I usully keep ACKs, RBs and SOBs together
> at the bottom.

I don't think it's a hard requirement, but it makes logical sense to
order the tags except your own SoB based on chronological order when
re-submitting a new version IMO. It's in the same spirit of putting SoBs
in chronological when multiple people handle the patches.

But it's your choice, I just feel it's a bit odd in the current order
;-)

Regards,
Boqun