linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] rust: time: Convert hrtimer to use Instant and Delta

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: <87wm912sjg.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:11:31 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
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

"Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> writes:

> 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.

None of the options are the right choice. Cost and ownership _do_ line
up for `into_*` in this case. The mismatch is `into_*` is reserved for
`T: !Copy`.

>
> If this were not a rename and didn't had conflicts, then it wouldn't
> be a big deal. But given it is wrong

I do not think that is settled.

> 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.

Ok, I'll drop it.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg