[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DDO3OMBHS8TB.2LDODR1AFRCU3@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:20:41 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: "FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
<daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
<alex.gaynor@...il.com>, <ojeda@...nel.org>, <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <frederic@...nel.org>,
<gary@...yguo.net>, <jstultz@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<lossin@...nel.org>, <lyude@...hat.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
<sboyd@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Greg
Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: add udelay() function
On Tue Oct 21, 2025 at 5:13 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> i.e. if they aren't sure what the value is, then I would prefer they
> clamp it explicitly on the callee side (or we provide an explicitly
> clamped version if it is a common case, but it seems to me runtime
> values are already the minority).
Absolutely! Especially given the context udelay() is introduced
(read_poll_timeout_atomic()), the compile time checked version is what we really
want.
Maybe we should even defer a runtime checked / clamped version until it is
actually needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists