[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72kyECp8q2q3ySunR-LhQ4t6L1QA2113he1W1s9yrHfxUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 17:05:38 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...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>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hsiu Che Yu <yu.whisper.personal@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: num: bounded: add safety comment for Bounded::__new
On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:35 PM Hsiu Che Yu
<yu.whisper.personal@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I previously believed that a function should only be marked unsafe when
> it directly operates on unsafe code. I now understand that the decision
> should be based on the actual safety implications rather than just
> semantic considerations.
>
> Thank you also for the clarification on the tags. I spent some time
> trying to understand them, and your explanation is very helpful.
>
> I will address this in v2 by making it an `unsafe fn` and documenting
> the safety requirements in the `# Safety` section.
My pleasure, and welcome to the Linux kernel!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists