linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] rust: remove `#[allow(clippy::non_send_fields_in_send

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: <20250628164235.1376ab5f@nimda.home>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 16:42:35 +0300
From: Onur <work@...rozkan.dev>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
 airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, ojeda@...nel.org,
 alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
 bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, lossin@...nel.org, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
 aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, rafael@...nel.org,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
 mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, davidgow@...gle.com, nm@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] rust: remove
 `#[allow(clippy::non_send_fields_in_send_ty)]`

On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:28:29 +0200
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 3:11 PM Onur <work@...rozkan.dev> wrote:
> >
> > Aha, I see. I missed that. I guess `allow` was added when the author
> > had this lint enabled on their checkout, but their work was merged
> > when lint removal was merged before that.
> 
> Yeah, some of the code going around was written years ago, so
> sometimes this sort of thing happens. :)
> 
> > Do you want me to update the patch description by including
> > 5e7c9b84ad08 ref and send v4?
> 
> Sure -- maybe wait a few days, to see if anyone says anything else.
> Then we will need to wait for Acked-bys from other maintainers.
> 
> Or, actually, if you are sending a new version and you are willing to
> do it, then it would be easier to land if you split the first patch
> also by subsystem -- that way each maintainer can take their patches
> on their own time instead. Since each patch is independent, you can
> send them in independent patch series, that makes it even easier for
> maintainers to track.

I don't have enough time to do it right now, but I would be happy
to do it in ~3 days during the week (assuming it's still not being
reviewed by the maintainers by then).

Regards,
Onur