netdev - Re: [PATCH v8 3/7] rust: time: Introduce Instant type

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: <CANiq72m++27i+=H0KUaf=6fn=p29iueEV-+g8toctp0O0zEW+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:37:42 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, 
	hkallweit1@...il.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, ojeda@...nel.org, 
	alex.gaynor@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, 
	benno.lossin@...ton.me, a.hindborg@...sung.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com, 
	anna-maria@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	arnd@...db.de, jstultz@...gle.com, sboyd@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, 
	peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, 
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, 
	mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/7] rust: time: Introduce Instant type

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 5:42 AM FUJITA Tomonori
<fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
>
> -/// A Rust wrapper around a `ktime_t`.
> +/// A specific point in time.
>  #[repr(transparent)]
>  #[derive(Copy, Clone, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Eq, Ord)]
> -pub struct Ktime {
> +pub struct Instant {
> +    // Range from 0 to `KTIME_MAX`.

On top of what Tom mentioned: is this intended as an invariant? If
yes, then please document it publicly in the `Instant` docs in a `#
Invariants` section. Otherwise, I would clarify this comment somehow,
since it seems ambiguous.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel