linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] rust: time: Make HasHrTimer generic over HrTimerMode

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: <87wm9s4wkc.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:30:27 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,  <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
  <frederic@...nel.org>,  <lyude@...hat.com>,  <tglx@...utronix.de>,
  <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,  <jstultz@...gle.com>,  <sboyd@...nel.org>,
  <ojeda@...nel.org>,  <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,  <gary@...yguo.net>,
  <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,  <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
  <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,  <tmgross@...ch.edu>,  <dakr@...nel.org>,
  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] rust: time: Make HasHrTimer generic over
 HrTimerMode

"FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> writes:

> On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:41:10 +0200
> Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>> @@ -579,12 +604,16 @@ macro_rules! impl_has_hr_timer {
>>>          impl$({$($generics:tt)*})?
>>>              HasHrTimer<$timer_type:ty>
>>>              for $self:ty
>>> -        { self.$field:ident }
>>> +        {
>>> +            mode = $mode:ty,
>>> +            self.$field:ident
>>
>> How about:
>>
>>   mode = $mode:ty,
>>   field = self.$field:ident
>
> Works fo me.
>
>> So that there is some sort of red line when calling this. We could also
>> consider adopting another syntax for association:
>>
>>   mode: $mode:ty,
>>   field: self.$field:ident
>
> Looks fine too.
>
>> or something else like `<-` or `->` ?
>
> I personally prefer one of the two options above, but I'm also ok with
> `<-` or `->`.

OK, let's go with struct initializer syntax then (:). We can always
change it later if someone has a different opinion.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg