[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa398b6c-8336-4c4e-b4ce-5ab37d944190@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 22:31:25 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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>, Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>,
Alban Kurti <kurti@...icto.ai>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Krzysztof Wilczy´nski
<kwilczynski@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: pin-init: add references to previously initialized
fields
On 9/8/25 9:38 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:57:36AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> So, I think it should one clear instruction, i.e. #[bind], #[access], #[ref],
>> #[use], #[let], etc.
>
> In that sense I think `#[let]` is best? Because it indicates this field
> initialization works as a `let`-statement (in term of creating a new
> binding), of course I don't have strong ojections against other options.
Same for me, I'm fine with any of this kind. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists