[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=QN3Sr5xS-uFhZVX0+L2==moR7cBzRJ8kKxDa5s75-jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 22:00:26 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rust: iov: add iov_iter abstractions for ITER_SOURCE
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:54 PM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Don't we have some kind of `build_assert` macro to do this? If not,
> maybe we should.
`static_assert!` is the one (`build_assert!` is the other one, which
is a heavier hammer that should only be used if really needed).
Though our `static_assert!` does not have support for an (optional)
message -- we could add that, perhaps as a good first issue. In this
case it is not a big deal either way.
> How did you arrive at this conclusion? In the discussions with Ralph on
Ralf?
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists