Re: [RFC PATCH] rust: sync: Add dma_fence abstractions

[Boqun Feng]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 02:14:22PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 6:10 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts? Miguel, Greg, Danilo and Lyude, any idea or suggestion?
> 
> Either way sounds OK.
> 
> More generally, one thing to consider nowadays is whether we will want
> something to eventually live in its own crate etc., but for this I
> don't think it applies and being in the `kernel` crate is fine.
> 

Being in the `kernel` crate is fine to me as well assuming dma-buf is
also in the `kernel` crate, but I think it's not fine to put it in
kernel::sync (see my reply to Philipp) as it is.

IMO, we have a few other issues of file hierarchy as well, so I'm trying
to avoid more.

For example:

- It may actually make more sense to revocable.rs in kernel::sync.
- device_id.rs and devres.rs may be better in kernel::device?
- maybe we should create a kernel::bus and put auxiliary.rs, faux.rs,
  pci.rs and platform.rs into it?
- cpumask.rs could be in kernel::cpu?

Regards,
Boqun

> By the way, should Gustavo and -media be Cc'd?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel