linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] rust: net::phy Change module_phy_driver macro to use module_device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72k0sdUoBxVYghgh50+ZRV2gbDkgVjuZgJLtj=4s9852xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:59 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: alex.gaynor@...il.com, dakr@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, saravanak@...gle.com, 
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, 
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, david.m.ertman@...el.com, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, gary@...yguo.net, ira.weiny@...el.com, 
	kwilczynski@...nel.org, leon@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, lossin@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] rust: net::phy Change module_phy_driver macro to
 use module_device_table macro

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 8:10 AM FUJITA Tomonori
<fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
>
> +// SAFETY: [`DeviceId`] is a `#[repr(transparent)` wrapper of `struct mdio_device_id`

No need for intra-doc link in normal comments.

Also, missing bracket (which apparently comes from another comment, so
probably copy-pasted).

> +    // This should never be called.
> +    fn index(&self) -> usize {
> +        0
> +    }

Hmm... This isn't great. Could this perhaps be designed differently?
e.g. split into two traits, possibly based one on another, or similar?

Worst case, we should at least do a `debug_assert!` or similar.

Cheers,
Miguel