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: <DBN0D5J10BH9.3I1FHJC1KZ79A@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 19:20:02 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
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 4:26 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> 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.

AFAIK maintainers can pick different parts of a series', right?

> 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.

This is the main benefit in this case I'd say.

---
Cheers,
Benno

>
> 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/