[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025090849-tweak-conductor-f642@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 14:48:53 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, 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>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Dirk Beheme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/7] rust: debugfs: Add support for read-only files
On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 12:54:46PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon Sep 8, 2025 at 12:17 PM CEST, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > I tried using this in a "tiny" test module I had written, and I get the
> > following build error:
> >
> > --> samples/rust/rust_debugfs2.rs:64:53
> > |
> > 64 | _file = root.read_only_file(c_str!("name"), &hw_soc_info.name);
> > | -------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `&u32`, found `&&CStr`
> > | |
> > | arguments to this method are incorrect
> > |
> > = note: expected reference `&u32`
> > found reference `&&'static kernel::prelude::CStr`
> >
> > I'm trying to "just" print a CStr, which is defined as:
> >
> > struct HwSocInfo {
> > id: u32,
> > ver: u32,
> > raw_id: u32,
> > foundry: u32,
> > name: &'static CStr,
> > }
> >
> > Is this just a "user is holding it wrong" error on my side, or can this api not
> > handle CStr values?
>
> What you're doing should fundamentally work.
>
> The above error suggests that your declaration of `_file` is File<&u32> rather
> than File<&'static CStr>.
Ah, ick, I missed that the return type would be different here. Yes, I
was doing a bunch of file creation calls:
let mut _file = root.read_only_file(c_str!("id"), &hw_soc_info.id);
_file = root.read_only_file(c_str!("ver"), &hw_soc_info.ver);
_file = root.read_only_file(c_str!("raw_id"), &hw_soc_info.raw_id);
_file = root.read_only_file(c_str!("name"), &hw_soc_info.name);
As I don't care about the return value here at all.
But really, I should just write this as:
root.read_only_file(c_str!("id"), &hw_soc_info.id);
root.read_only_file(c_str!("ver"), &hw_soc_info.ver);
root.read_only_file(c_str!("raw_id"), &hw_soc_info.raw_id);
root.read_only_file(c_str!("name"), hw_soc_info.name);
with, as you point out:
> Also note the double reference you create with `&hw_soc_info.name`, this should
> just be `hw_soc_info.name`.
Yes, sorry, my fault there.
> You can also test this case by applying the following diff the the sample in v5:
>
> diff --git a/samples/rust/rust_debugfs.rs b/samples/rust/rust_debugfs.rs
> index b26eea3ee723..475502f30b1a 100644
> --- a/samples/rust/rust_debugfs.rs
> +++ b/samples/rust/rust_debugfs.rs
> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ struct RustDebugFs {
> #[pin]
> _compatible: File<CString>,
> #[pin]
> + _test: File<&'static CStr>,
> + #[pin]
> counter: File<AtomicUsize>,
> #[pin]
> inner: File<Mutex<Inner>>,
> @@ -140,6 +142,7 @@ fn new(pdev: &platform::Device<Core>) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> + '_ {
> .property_read::<CString>(c_str!("compatible"))
> .required_by(dev)?,
> ),
> + _test <- debugfs.read_only_file(c_str!("test"), c_str!("some_value")),
Cool, but again, we do not want to ever be storing individual debugfs
files. Well, we can, but for 90% of the cases, we do not, we only want
to remove the whole directory when that goes out of scope, which will
clean up the files then.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists