linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] rust: add `bitfield!` macro

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: <949bf4c8-3fe9-4c43-8b6e-2241cd609416@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:41:02 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 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>,
 Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 Edwin Peer <epeer@...dia.com>, Eliot Courtney <ecourtney@...dia.com>,
 Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
 Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] rust: add `bitfield!` macro

On 1/27/26 5:28 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed Jan 28, 2026 at 6:10 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote:
>> On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 9:03 PM GMT, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 1/27/26 1:57 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 11:55 AM JST, Yury Norov wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>> Given the signature in the API I would agree with Yury that `with_` is better.
> 
> Indeed, given the signature of the method `with_` is definitely more
> idiomatic. But that is also true for the non-const setter, and they
> unfortunately cannot share the same name.
> 

oh that is unfortunate.

> Alternative names I can think of for the non-const / const setters:
> 
> - `with_foo`/`with_foo_const`, but that's a bit verbose,

Yes, but it is also at least slightly self-explanatory: "the name
is a little ugly, but you can see what it is for".

> - `with_foo`/`const_foo`, but that's not idiomatic either,
> - `with_foo_val`/`with_foo`, but that increases the risk of name
>   clashes.
> 
> ... so unless there are better proposals I guess the
> `set_foo`/`with_foo` is at least practical, if a bit unconventional.

...whereas this choice just looks unhinged, at first glance:
"what? whhhyyy???" haha :)

And eventually the reader figures out why. Maybe.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard