linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Introduce bitfield and move register macro to rust/kernel/

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: <CANiq72kykzwdv2fOmRMeJ_FPztkkU2a=PFDH1fo9+XbGAeKsaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 18:12:07 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, dakr@...nel.org, 
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 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>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, 
	joel@...lfernandes.org, Elle Rhumsaa <elle@...thered-steel.dev>, 
	Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>, 
	nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Introduce bitfield and move register macro to rust/kernel/

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 3:21 PM Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> Ack - how do you expect things to work in terms of code flow? Do we need
> to have a dedicated tree and send you pull requests? If so, should we
> host it under the Rust-for-Linux Github org?

In general, if there is a better tree (i.e. an existing C subsystem),
then what we always do is ask those maintainers first.

But, otherwise, if there is no good choice because it is something too
generic/core, then yes, what you propose would be ideal (and it should
be easy since you are already maintainers of other trees etc.).

If the amount of patches ends up being very low, we can skip the tree
and I can take the patches, but PRs are simpler and scale better for
me.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel