linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

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: <CANiq72=38RO9PGAMDtnTK8wj-yRSmg9UOfq7D6af7AwAKwn=DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:57:56 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Drew Fustini <fustini@...nel.org>, 
	Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Fu Wei <wefu@...hat.com>, 
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>, 
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 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>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:07 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> AFAIU, encoding the state of the clock into the Clk type (and thus
> forcing the structure that holds it) prevents that mutation. If not, we
> should make it clearer (by expanding the doc maybe?) how such a pattern
> can be supported.

One possibility to consider in cases like this is whether supporting
both cases differently makes sense, i.e. one for that covers
easily/safely/... the usual "80%" of cases, and another "advanced" one
(possibly unsafe etc.) for the rest.

While it may be a bit more to maintain, it may pay itself off by
making it easier to review the easy ones if the majority only need
that etc.

Cheers,
Miguel