[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6720f5de-f3e0-4ae9-8b8d-7ae2029799ce@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:06:03 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, lossin@...nel.org, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
tmgross@...ch.edu, mmaurer@...gle.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] rust: uaccess: add
UserSliceWriter::write_slice_partial()
On 10/22/25 10:22 AM, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> It's tricky. Perhaps if you make them standalone functions, then using
> the simple_read_from_buffer naming is less confusing? Then it's just
> kernel::uaccess::simple_read_from_buffer() and it takes a
> UserSliceWriter.
If we want to preserve the name, then that's probably the best option.
However, given that write_slice() and read_slice() represent
copy_{to,from}_user(), it also seems reasonable to give it a name that matches
the UserSlice{Writer,Reader} naming scheme. Also because the implementation
utilizes UserSlice{Writer,Reader} rather than doing the corresponding FFI call.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists