[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cy8zfkw5.fsf@t14s.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:47:54 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex
Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy
Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Trevor
Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe
<axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/15] rnull: enable configuration via `configfs`
"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:44:29AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> Allow rust null block devices to be configured and instantiated via
>> `configfs`.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
>
> Overall LGTM, but a few comments below:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/rnull/configfs.rs b/drivers/block/rnull/configfs.rs
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..8d469c046a39
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/block/rnull/configfs.rs
>> @@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +
>> +use super::{NullBlkDevice, THIS_MODULE};
>> +use core::fmt::Write;
>> +use kernel::{
>> + block::mq::gen_disk::{GenDisk, GenDiskBuilder},
>> + c_str,
>> + configfs::{self, AttributeOperations},
>> + configfs_attrs, new_mutex,
>
> It would be nice to add
>
> pub use configfs_attrs;
>
> to the configfs module so that you can import the macro from the
> configfs module instead of the root.
OK, I'll do that.
>
>> + try_pin_init!( DeviceConfig {
>> + data <- new_mutex!( DeviceConfigInner {
>
> Extra spaces in these macros.
Thanks. I subconsciously like the space in that location, so when
rustfmt is bailing, I get these things in my code.
>> + let power_op_str = core::str::from_utf8(page)?.trim();
>> +
>> + let power_op = match power_op_str {
>> + "0" => Ok(false),
>> + "1" => Ok(true),
>> + _ => Err(EINVAL),
>> + }?;
>
> We probably want kstrtobool here instead of manually parsing the
> boolean.
Yea, I was debating on this a bit. I did want to consolidate this code,
but I don't particularly like ktostrbool. But I guess in the name of
consistency across the kernel it is the right choice.
I'll add it to next spin.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists