[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXed8cQLJhDSTuXG@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:40:33 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: alice@...l.io, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
andrew@...n.ch, tmgross@...ch.edu, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
benno.lossin@...ton.me, wedsonaf@...il.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 1/4] rust: core abstractions for network PHY
drivers
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:15:05AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
[...]
> >> + /// Reads a given C22 PHY register.
> >> + // This function reads a hardware register and updates the stats so
> >> takes `&mut self`.
> >> + pub fn read(&mut self, regnum: u16) -> Result<u16> {
> >> + let phydev = self.0.get();
> >> + // SAFETY: `phydev` is pointing to a valid object by the type
> >> invariant of `Self`.
> >> + // So an FFI call with a valid pointer.
> >
> > This sentence also doesn't parse in my brain. Perhaps "So it's just an
> > FFI call" or similar?
>
> "So it's just an FFI call" looks good. I'll fix all the places that
> use the same comment.
I would also mention that `(*phydev).mdio.addr` is smaller than
PHY_MAX_ADDR (per C side invariants in mdio maybe), since otherwise
mdiobus_read() would cause out-of-bound accesses at ->stats. The safety
comments are supposed to describe why calling the C function won't cause
memory safety issues..
Regards,
Boqun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists