Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] [RFC] Device / Driver and PCI Rust abstractions

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:16:19PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:14:57PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:25:37PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > This patch sereis implements basic generic device / driver Rust abstractions,
> > > as well as some basic PCI abstractions.
> > > 
> > > This patch series is sent in the context of [1], and the corresponding patch
> > > series [2], which contains some basic DRM Rust abstractions and a stub
> > > implementation of the Nova GPU driver.
> > > 
> > > Nova is intended to be developed upstream, starting out with just a stub driver
> > > to lift some initial required infrastructure upstream. A more detailed
> > > explanation can be found in [1].
> > > 
> > > Some patches, which implement the generic device / driver Rust abstractions have
> > > been sent a couple of weeks ago already [3]. For those patches the following
> > > changes have been made since then:
> > > 
> > > - remove RawDevice::name()
> > > - remove rust helper for dev_name() and dev_get_drvdata()
> > > - use AlwaysRefCounted for struct Device
> > > - drop trait RawDevice entirely in favor of AsRef and provide
> > >   Device::from_raw(), Device::as_raw() and Device::as_ref() instead
> > > - implement RevocableGuard
> > > - device::Data, remove resources and replace it with a Devres abstraction
> > > - implement Devres abstraction for resources
> 
> Ah, here's the difference from the last time, sorry, it wasn't obvious.
> 
> Still nothing about proper handling and use of 'remove' in the context
> of all of this, that's something you really really really need to get
> right if you want to attempt to have a driver in rust interact with the
> driver core properly.

We were right in the middle of discussing about the correct wording when I sent
those patches the first time. There were some replies from my side, e.g. [1] and
another reply from Wedson [2] about this, which you did not want to reply to any
more.

I'm not saying I insist on not changing those comments up, but first we have to
agree on how we want them to be rephrased, especially since from the
discussions so far I got the impression that we might talk a bit past each
other.

Hence, I'd propose to just continue the discussion, where we need to.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZgNCo4Hvs-EjDNGT@pollux/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CANeycqrdBVJhAiGZdv2NSnz2SUCuDC=04D_JiTF6vfs8iLvjrA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>