Re: [PATCH v2] rust: Implement the smart pointer `InPlaceInit` for `Arc`

From: Alex Mantel
Date: Sat Jul 27 2024 - 11:59:24 EST


Submitted v3:

https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20240727042442.682109-1-alexmantel93@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks for the feedback!

On 25.07.24 11:06, Benno Lossin wrote:
On 19.07.24 21:22, Alex Mantel wrote:
diff --git a/rust/kernel/init.rs b/rust/kernel/init.rs
index 68605b633..46f50cf12 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/init.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/init.rs
@@ -213,6 +213,7 @@
use crate::{
alloc::{box_ext::BoxExt, AllocError, Flags},
error::{self, Error},
+ sync::Arc,
sync::UniqueArc,
types::{Opaque, ScopeGuard},
};
@@ -1112,11 +1113,15 @@ unsafe fn __pinned_init(self, slot: *mut T) -> Result<(), E> {

/// Smart pointer that can initialize memory in-place.
pub trait InPlaceInit<T>: Sized {
+ /// A type might be pinned implicitly. An addtional `Pin<ImplicitlyPinned>` is useless. In
+ /// doubt, the type can just be set to `Pin<Self>`.

This comment should better describe the purpose of this associated type,
the first line could be "Pinned version of `Self`" then (with an empty
line in between) you could write more explanatory stuff. I would also
rephrase what you have above, for example: "If a type already implicitly
pins its pointee, `Pin<Self>` is unnecessary. In this case use `Self`,
otherwise just use `Pin<Self>`.".

+ type PinnedResult;

I don't really like the name for this, since it is not a result. What do
you think of `PinnedSelf`?

Otherwise this looks good!

---
Cheers,
Benno

+
/// Use the given pin-initializer to pin-initialize a `T` inside of a new smart pointer of this
/// type.
///
/// If `T: !Unpin` it will not be able to move afterwards.
- fn try_pin_init<E>(init: impl PinInit<T, E>, flags: Flags) -> Result<Pin<Self>, E>
+ fn try_pin_init<E>(init: impl PinInit<T, E>, flags: Flags) -> Result<Self::PinnedResult, E>
where
E: From<AllocError>;