Re: [PATCH 03/11] rust: macros: convert `#[vtable]` macro to use `syn`

[Tamir Duberstein]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 9:18 PM Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 18:44:43 -0500
> Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 2:29 PM Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > `#[vtable]` is converted to use syn. This is more robust than the
> > > previous heuristic-based searching of defined methods and functions.
> > >
> > > When doing so, the trait and impl are split into two code paths as the
> > > types are distinct when parsed by `syn`.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Logic looks correct, but the duplication between handle_trait and
> > handle_impl is unfortunate. I golfed on this a bit, see if you like
> > it: https://github.com/tamird/linux/commit/8354c5a48769f5e1e52963d19ca57c31e5926b08.
>
> I very much prefer the code to be separate. The trait and impl *should*
> be different. It's just that they *look* similar.
>
> Defining
>
>         const HAS_FOO: bool = false;
>
> in trait is defining a new contract while providing *default* value,
> while
>
>         const HAS_FOO: bool = true;
>
> is implementing such contract with a specific value. They look the
> same but I think the way `syn` treats them differently is justified.

Yes, the similarity is perhaps superficial, but the duplication in the
current patch goes a good bit further because all the surrounding
ceremony is also duplicated.

>
> I think the fact that existing code has a boolean and do different
> things based on it is a good enough supporting reason to handle
> different code path.
>
> For some new `vtable` features that I am working on would require quite
> different impl between the two.

It seems unusual to justify current changes with future changes.

>
> Best,
> Gary