linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] rust: io: separate generic I/O helpers from MMIO implementation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260120192654.014ba848.zhiw@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:26:54 +0200
From: Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
CC: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.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>, <gary@...yguo.net>,
	<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, 20 Jan 2026 11:12:18 +0100
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:

Hey folks:

Thanks for the comments and RBs! Agreed. I will adopt this approach in
v11: using a single series of IoCapable<T> traits and retaining
IoKnownSize.

Z.

> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 9:04 AM CET, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:22:44PM +0200, Zhi Wang wrote:
> > Overall looks good to me. Some comments below:
> >
> > I still think it would make sense to have `IoCapable<T>:
> > IoTryCapable<T>`, but it's not a big deal.
> 
> I think with this approach it's not necessary to have this requirement.
> In practice, most impls will have both, but I think it's a good thing
> that we don't have to have an impl even if not used by any driver, i.e.
> it helps avoiding dead code.
> 
> >> +    /// Infallible 64-bit read with compile-time bounds check.
> >> +    #[cfg(CONFIG_64BIT)]
> >> +    fn read64(&self, offset: usize) -> u64
> >> +    #[cfg(CONFIG_64BIT)]
> >> +    fn try_read64(&self, offset: usize) -> Result<u64>
> >
> > These don't really need cfg(CONFIG_64BIT). You can place that cfg on
> > impl blocks of IoCapable<u64>.
> 
> If you agree with the above, I can fix this up when applying the series.