[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCSRJnKu3-igA2PK@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:48:38 +0200
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.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>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
abstraction
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:23:04PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Wed May 14, 2025 at 1:50 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> > In the C API the disable operation just fails and it's treated as though
> > you hadn't done anything from a refcounting point of view.
> But if it succeeds it takes ownership? The function `regulator_disable`
> is also used in the `Drop` impl of the `EnabledRegulator`, so it better
> give up the refcount, otherwise we would leak it.
I can't understand what you are saying at all, sorry. What does "take
ownership" mean, and what is the "it" here? We are talking about the
case where regulator_disable() fails here, that means it didn't do what
it was asked to do.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists