[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DFTJPCU9NQQ5.1J4RRDVZH3SX@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 17:09:13 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>
Cc: "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Zhi Wang" <zhiw@...dia.com>,
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<kwilczynski@...nel.org>, <ojeda@...nel.org>, <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
<boqun.feng@...il.com>, <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <lossin@...nel.org>,
<a.hindborg@...nel.org>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <markus.probst@...teo.de>,
<helgaas@...nel.org>, <cjia@...dia.com>, <smitra@...dia.com>,
<ankita@...dia.com>, <aniketa@...dia.com>, <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
<targupta@...dia.com>, <acourbot@...dia.com>, <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
<jhubbard@...dia.com>, <zhiwang@...nel.org>, <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] rust: io: separate generic I/O helpers from
MMIO implementation
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 4:59 PM CET, Gary Guo wrote:
> I think whether there's a runtime bound checking and whether a IO size is
> supported are two orthogonal things, I would rather we have a single series of
> `IoCapable<T>` to just indiate the latter and still keep the `IoKnownSize`.
I like this idea, it seems like a very reasonable compromise to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists