Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support

[Boqun Feng]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:46:45AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
[...]
> > To me, it's perfectly fine that Atomic{I32,I64} co-exist with Atomic<T>.
> > What's the downside? A bit specific example would help me understand
> > the real concern here.
> 
> I don't like that, why have two ways of doing the same thing? People
> will be confused whether they should use `AtomicI32` vs `Atomic<i32>`...
> 

BTW, we already have something similar like this in kernel, we have
SpinLock<T> and Lock<T, SpinLockBackend>, how should we do about this?

Regards,
Boqun

> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>