[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mP7tGzZM_f2gRSVcBw5a5Y7vMM3eOSvuAOK=yJeEmFBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:46:40 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...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 <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Convert `/// SAFETY` lines to `# Safety` sections
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 1:23 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Replace `/// SAFETY` comments in doc comments with proper `# Safety`
> sections, as per rustdoc conventions.
>
> Also mark the C FFI callbacks as `unsafe` to correctly reflect their
> safety requirements.
+1 I guess the Clippy lint triggered when writing the section, right?
I think it would be nice to have a lint to catch this other case, i.e.
using `// SAFETY`, so opened:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/15033
I also found a possible false negative (or positive, depends) related
to this, so opened:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/15034
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists