Re: [PATCH v5 01/16] rust: pass module name to `Module::init`

[Alice Ryhl]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:31 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:14:37PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 01:34:31PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 01:22:33PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:05:10PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:48:23AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:45:20AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:46:28PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In a subsequent patch we introduce the `Registration` abstraction used
> > > > > > > > > to register driver structures. Some subsystems require the module name on
> > > > > > > > > driver registration (e.g. PCI in __pci_register_driver()), hence pass
> > > > > > > > > the module name to `Module::init`.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nit, we don't need the NAME of the PCI driver (well, we do like it, but
> > > > > > > > that's not the real thing), we want the pointer to the module structure
> > > > > > > > in the register_driver call.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does this provide for that?  I'm thinking it does, but it's not the
> > > > > > > > "name" that is the issue here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wait, no, you really do want the name, don't you.  You refer to
> > > > > > > "module.0" to get the module structure pointer (if I'm reading the code
> > > > > > > right), but as you have that pointer already, why can't you just use
> > > > > > > module->name there as well as you have a pointer to a valid module
> > > > > > > structure that has the name already embedded in it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In digging further, it's used by the pci code to call into lower layers,
> > > > > > but why it's using a different string other than the module name string
> > > > > > is beyond me.  Looks like this goes way back before git was around, and
> > > > > > odds are it's my fault for something I wrote a long time ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll see if I can just change the driver core to not need a name at all,
> > > > > > and pull it from the module which would make all of this go away in the
> > > > > > end.  Odds are something will break but who knows...
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, things break, the "name" is there to handle built-in modules (as
> > > > > the module pointer will be NULL.)
> > > > >
> > > > > So what you really want is not the module->name (as I don't think that
> > > > > will be set), but you want KBUILD_MODNAME which the build system sets.
> > > >
> > > > That's correct, and the reason why I pass through this name argument.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier to save you some time.
> > > >
> > > > > You shouldn't need to pass the name through all of the subsystems here,
> > > > > just rely on the build system instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or does the Rust side not have KBUILD_MODNAME?
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, it doesn't (or didn't have at the time I wrote the patch).
> > > >
> > > > @Miguel: Can we access KBUILD_MODNAME conveniently?
> > >
> > > Actually, I now remember there was another reason why I pass it through in
> > > `Module::init`.
> > >
> > > Even if we had env!(KBUILD_MODNAME) already, I'd want to use it from the bus
> > > abstraction code, e.g. rust/kernel/pci.rs. But since this is generic code, it
> > > won't get the KBUILD_MODNAME from the module that is using the bus abstraction.
> >
> > Rust can't do that in a macro somehow that all pci rust drivers can pull
> > from?
>
> The problem is that register / unregister is encapsulated within methods of the
> abstraction types. So the C macro trick (while generally possible) isn't
> applicable.
>
> I think we could avoid having an additional `name` parameter in `Module::init`,
> but it would still need to be the driver resolving `env!(KBUILD_MODNAME)`
> passing it into the bus abstraction.
>
> However, similar to what Alice suggested in another thread, we could include
> this step in the `module_*_driver!` macros.
>
> Modules that don't use this convenience macro would need to do it by hand
> though. But that's probably not that big a deal.

I think we can do it in the core `module!` macro that everyone has to use.

Alice