[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7320995f-cd6d-4e65-b144-bd20151f9e5e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 17:42:24 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>,
Andrew Ballance <andrewjballance@...il.com>, 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>,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] rust: alloc: split `Vec::set_len` into
`Vec::{inc,dec}_len`
On 4/16/25 3:28 PM, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:52:30AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>> This series is the product of a discussion[0] on the safety requirements
>> of `set_len`.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250315154436.65065-1-dakr@kernel.org/ [0]
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250316111644.154602-2-andrewjballance@gmail.com/ [1]
>> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
>
> I'm still wondering if the divergence from upstream alloc is worth it...
> but the code is okay.
>
> Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Does this still apply to patch 1 in v4 [1]?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250416-vec-set-len-v4-1-112b222604cd@gmail.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists