[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9=23BLX_eo9QYESHFR6JCWJg6AL2Bmg45GAS=wHqAZw4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:52:18 -0400
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] rust: use strict provenance APIs
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 8:59 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 08:41:49AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 8:37 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 09:34:42AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > The rest Rust code changes look good to me. Although I would suggest you
> > > > > to split this patch into several patches: you can do the conversion from
> > > > > "as" pattern to provenance API one file by one file, and this make it
> > > > > easier for people to review. And after the conversions are done, you can
> > > > > introduce the Makefile changes.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's fine to do several of the `as` conversions in a single
> > >
> > > Well, "fine" != "recommended", right? ;-) If the patch was split,
> > > reviewers would be able to give Reviewed-by to individual patches that
> > > looks fine trivially. Then it's easier to make progress every iteration,
> > > and also allows partially applying the changes. Of course it doesn't
> > > have to be file-by-file.
> >
> > I sent v4 a little while ago, hopefully the resulting complexity is
> > manageable now that the build system is untouched.
> >
>
> I have fun plans today (skiing!), so won't be able to take another
> detailed look. What I was trying to say is that: should you split the
> patches, I would have already given some Reviewed-bys ;-) But as Benno
> said, it's fine, so don't worry, I will take another look later. Thanks!
Have fun! ⛷️
Powered by blists - more mailing lists