[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DBCMU4L9I666.BQSFUQGO18TF@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:37:17 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Benno Lossin"
<lossin@...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>, "Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Bjorn Helgaas"
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Krzysztof Wilczyński
<kwilczynski@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] rust: irq: add support for non-threaded IRQs and
handlers
On Tue Jul 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 5:13 PM Daniel Almeida
> <daniel.almeida@...labora.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> (2) It is guaranteed that the device pointer is valid because (1) guarantees
>> >>> it's even bound and because Devres<RegistrationInner> itself has a
>> >>> reference count.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah but I would find it much more natural (and also useful in other
>> >> circumstances) if `Devres<T>` would give you access to `Device` (at
>> >> least the `Normal` type state).
>> >
>> > If we use container_of!() instead or just pass the address of Self (i.e.
>> > Registration) to request_irq() instead,
>>
>>
>> Boqun, Benno, are you ok with passing the address of Registration<T> as the cookie?
>>
>> Recall that this was a change requested in v4, so I am checking whether we are
>> all on the same page before going back to that.
>>
>> See [0], i.e.:
>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aFq3P_4XgP0dUrAS@Mac.home/
>
> After discussing this, Daniel and I agreed that I will implement the
> change adding a Device<Bound> argument to the callback. I will be
> sending a patch adding it separately as a follow-up to Daniel's work.
That works for me, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists