[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72nwaxszEbn6O3xZi6H9P+U=5N0ugK1n9qBRteQwKXQSaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:24:54 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
Cc: alex.gaynor@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, aliceryhl@...gle.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, dakr@...nel.org,
frederic@...nel.org, gary@...yguo.net, jstultz@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lossin@...nel.org, lyude@...hat.com,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tmgross@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] rust: time: Convert hrtimer to use Instant and Delta
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:14 PM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> My plan is to merge it and go with `into_*`. There are pros and cons for
> both `to_*` and `into_*`. If someone has objections, they can send a new
> patch with rationale and we can revisit. Sounds OK?
I would just drop (or revert) the patch. The issue was under
discussion, and anyway it seems clear that `into_*` is not the right
choice from both the cost and ownership perspectives that we were
discussing in the other thread.
If this were not a rename and didn't had conflicts, then it wouldn't
be a big deal. But given it is wrong and already introduces pain for
others (and likely even more pain when we need to rename it back next
cycle), it doesn't look like a good idea to keep it.
It is early in the cycle anyway.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists