[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aD3g8P2qqgNsEkul@pollux>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 19:35:44 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: 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>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 11:40:43AM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> I guess the only difference would be removing the handler() accessor, as the
> caller is now expected to figure this part out on his own, i.e.:
>
> In your example (IIUC) that would mean accessing the Arc in IRQHandler1
> and IRQHandler2 through some other clone and from the actual T:Handler in
> the callback.
Basically yes, but there's also the other alternative in [1] -- either is fine
for me.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD3f1GSZJ6K-RP5r@pollux/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists