[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cac21970-e2aa-49a8-ba25-7b41ffbc05f9@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 12:26:27 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] rust: add `Alignment` type
On 8/5/25 6:26 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
...
> This leaves us with two viable solutions: `Alignable` extension trait
> with `align_up` and `align_down` operations that take an `Alignment` as
> parameter (with the caveat that they could not be const for now), or a
>From a readability point of view, this first option sounds nice. It's
clear, concise, and doesn't involve macros.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
> set of per-type functions defined using a macro, similar to bit/genmask.
> I am fine with both but don't know which one would be preferred, can the
> R4L leadership provide some guidance? :)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists