linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] rust: cpumask: Bindings for core cpumasks and cpumask iterators

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7107432f-4d0f-4544-9592-76a5e5c6d220@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 16:19:36 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@...il.com>, Yury Norov
 <yury.norov@...il.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>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
 Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rust: cpumask: Bindings for core cpumasks and cpumask
 iterators

On 11/5/25 3:16 PM, Mitchell Levy wrote:
> The kernel provides a number of very useful CPU masks from the C side,
> including CPU masks for possible and online CPUs. In particular, these
> are very useful when some operation must be done on each CPU (either
> each possible CPU or each online CPU, etc). Therefore, it seems to make
> sense to add both of these functionalities at once.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@...il.com>
> ---
> These patches originated as part of my work on a Rust per-CPU API [1].
> Boqun suggested to me that these may make sense to merge separately, and
> it does seem like these might be useful beyond the per-CPU work.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20251105-rust-percpu-v4-0-984b1470adcb@gmail.com/

Even though you are trying to get these two patches merged separately,
I think it's best (for reviewers) if you post a patchset that shows
these things being used. Otherwise it is potentially too unmoored from 
reality, and hard to be sure that it's exactly right from a caller's
point of view.

In this case, just posting that 9-patch series might work, and just
say in the cover letter that patches 3 through 9 are not ready for
merging.

Something like that.

I realize that Rust for Linux is being built from scratch right
now, but including calling code in a patchset is a really valuable
kernel convention that helps validate the code.

I say this for the benefit of others who may be reading. :)

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard