linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] rust: Add read_poll

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: <DBUK5YDTU8BH.3676DH8N0WQ6Y@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 16:19:40 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: "FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>, <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
 <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <ojeda@...nel.org>, <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 <gary@...yguo.net>, <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
 <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, <frederic@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 <arnd@...db.de>, <jstultz@...gle.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>,
 <mingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
 <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
 <vschneid@...hat.com>, <tgunders@...hat.com>, <me@...enk.dev>,
 <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] rust: Add read_poll_timeout functions

On Tue Aug 5, 2025 at 4:01 PM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> Perhaps it’s worth it to clarify that in the docs for the future versions?

If you mean the documentation that is given out to users of the API I disagree.

We should not explain the implmentation details or the reasons for them to
users. Instead we should explain the constraints and what users can expect from
the API and what's the best practice to use it.

If you meant to add a comment to the implementation itself, that's fine of
course.