linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator abstraction

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: <7EE7F737-3DD8-45A4-8451-A6BF92F453BC@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:06:59 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 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>,
 Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
 lgirdwood@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
 abstraction



> On 27 Mar 2025, at 08:50, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 08:46:29AM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>> Any function that takes 'self' by value (i.e.: “self" instead of “&self” )
>> effectively kills it.
> 
> I'm sure Daniel didn't mean it that way, but to avoid confusion, I want to
> clarify that a function that takes `self` as argument not necessarily results in
> `self` being destroyed. It could be moved into some other structure, directly
> returned by the same function etc.
> 
> It's just that if the functions lets `self` go out of scope, then it's
> destroyed.
> 

True, I found it easier to explain the current code by simplifying the story a
bit to fit the function we are discussing, but what Danilo said is what is
actually correct.

— Daniel