Re: [PATCH] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()

[Alice Ryhl]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:47 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 03:57:57PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's not the pin_init! stuff, but the Opaque stuff. If it fails, then
> > > it runs the destructor of Opaque<T>, which does *not* run the
> > > destructor of T.
> > >
> > > Alice
> >
> > This is pretty unintuitive if you take into account trivial examples like
> >
> > ```
> > struct Foo(T)
> > ```
> >
> > Where dropping Foo drops T.
> >
> > Is there any reason why dropping Opaque<T> doesn’t behave similarly?
> >
>
> Because `Opaque` implies the value may not be initialized, it's similar
> to `MaybeUninit`.
>
> Do you really need the `Opaque` here? C code won't touch `handler` if
> I'm not missing anything.

The irq callback is given access to handler, so it could touch it at any time.

Alice