[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAofZF7FPnDtNigBZ6UjWKPQ2a3JX6bm_N-uDxpD3Xnv5jwoYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:16:09 +0100
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] rust: add system_dfl() around the new system_dfl_wq
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 11:52 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 03:53:39PM +0000, Gary Guo wrote:
> > Is there any reason that we cannot migrate the user early by just returning
> > `system_dfl_wq` inside `system_unbound`? (I guess the question also applies on
> > why system_unbound_wq cannot be the same pointer as system_dfl_wq).
>
> I think this is confusing. Let's just rename it here and update the
> callers. Otherwise Rust gets out of sync with C naming-wise.
>
> > Also, I feel that `dfl` is not a very intuitive name. I searched the list and
> > the commit history for a while and cannot find the exact explaination on what it
> > means? Does it mean "default" or something else?
>
> This I agree with. dfl is not a good name. Let's at least call it
> "default" or "unbound" or whatever.
Ok, I will rename system_dfl() to system_default() (to keep consistent
the name with C).
Thanks!
--
Marco Crivellari
L3 Support Engineer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists