linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] rust: kernel: update ARef and AlwaysRefCounted imports from sync::aref

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: <CANiq72nBHtbZqt8R0dMSK6iWY7Z3vKLbeP_2dN2NaLOxRfOvCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 16:26:26 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Shankari Anand <shankari.ak0208@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, 
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...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>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Abdiel Janulgue <abdiel.janulgue@...il.com>, 
	Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, 
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] rust: kernel: update ARef and AlwaysRefCounted
 imports from sync::aref

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 2:37 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> That's good advice. I want to add that in this case, I think a series is
> better sending 7 independent patches. Using a series allows people to
> see if it is complete (ie there might be places that are missed). It
> also allows someone to send a single mail reviewing all patches & giving
> general comments about all patches in the series.

It is fine if places are missed, since in this case they are not meant
to be applied at once -- maintainers may think they are supposed to
give Acked-bys instead of applying them, and here the idea was to try
to see if we could get a migration like this via different trees
slowly, rather than the way we did the others.

For the "final series" that removes the re-export, it should
definitely be a series, because in such a case the idea is to apply
them all and remove the re-export at the end of it.

I guess it depends a bit on what maintainers want to do and the case
(e.g. if it is a tricky change, it may be best to have a series).
Sometimes same people may do it differently, e.g. [1][2].

But I agree that many independent patches are painful too, including
in Lore; and that it is always nice to have an "index" of all the
patches for those that want to see it as you say -- perhaps providing
a link to a Lore search, or having them all in the same thread can
help (though that can be confusing on its own), or having a first RFC
version as a series that can be linked later before splitting.

Cheers,
Miguel

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241127091036.444330-2-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221118224540.619276-1-uwe@kleine-koenig.org/