Re: [PATCH v11 6/8] MAINTAINERS: rust: Add new sections for DELAY/SLEEP and TIMEKEEPING API

[Boqun Feng]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 12:02:00PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
[...]
> >> > version of read_poll_timeout(), which is strictly worse. I'm happy to
> >> > collect patch #1 and the cpu_relax() patch of patch #7, and send an PR
> >> > to tip. Could you split them a bit:
> >> > 
> >> > * Move the Rust might_sleep() in patch #7 to patch #1 and put it at
> >> >   kernel::task, also if we EXPORT_SYMBOL(__might_sleep_precision), we
> >> >   don't need the rust_helper for it.
> >> > 
> >> > * Have a separate containing the cpu_relax() bit.
> >> > 
> >> > * Also you may want to put #[inline] at cpu_relax() and might_resched().
> >> > 
> >> > and we can start from there. Sounds good?
> >> 
> >> I can do whatever but I don't think these matters. The problem is that
> > 
> > Confused. I said I would do a PR, that means if no objection, the
> > patches will get merged. Isn't this a way to move forward? Or you're
> > against that I'm doing a PR?
> 
> I don't object to you doing a PR.
> 
> I meant that it's unclear whether we can move forward with the
> approach, as we haven't received much response from the maintainers
> and we don't know what the blockers are.
> 
> >> we haven't received a response from the scheduler maintainers for a
> >> long time. We don't even know if the implementation is actually an
> >> issue.
> >> 
> > 
> > If there's an issue, I can fix it. After all, printk confirmed that
> > ".*s" format works for this case:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZyyAsjsz05AlkOBd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > and Peter sort of confirmed he's not against the idea:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250201121613.GC8256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > I don't see any major issue blocking this. But of course, I'm happy to
> > resolve if there is one.
> 
> I know but this patch adds a workaround to the C code for Rust´s sake,

The workaround at C is a helper function and the original C API
still works as it should be.

> I would understand if the maintainers reject it and prefer having Rust
> work around the issue instead.
> 

The workaround at Rust means we could have a function interface but we
use a macro interface.

I say we pick the C workaround, because read_poll_timeout() is a public
API, it's worth the effect making it better.

> Anyway, let's try one more time. I'll modify the patch #1 as you
> suggested and send a new patchset.
> 

Thanks!

Regards,
Boqun

> 
> Thanks!