Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Rust: Fix typedefs for resource_size_t and phys_addr_t

[Alice Ryhl]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:24:45AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:49 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This changes ResourceSize to use the resource_size_t typedef (currently
> > > ResourceSize is defined as phys_addr_t), and moves ResourceSize to
> > > kernel::io and defines PhysAddr next to it. Any usage of ResourceSize or
> > > bindings::phys_addr_t that references a physical address is updated to
> > > use the new PhysAddr typedef.
> > 
> > Should we have these as actual types instead of aliases? i.e. same
> > discussion as for `Offset`.
> > 
> > If there is a change of these getting mixed up, then I think we should
> > just pay that price (not necessarily now, of course).
> 
> Maybe later. Right now I think it's more trouble than it's worth.
> 
> > > I included some cc stable annotations because I think it is useful to
> > > backport this to v6.18. This is to make backporting drivers to the 6.18
> > > LTS easier as we will not have to worry about changing imports when
> > > backporting.
> > 
> > For context, will those drivers be backported upstream too?
> 
> I could imagine cases where a normal fix gets backported upstream and
> benefits from this, but I mainly thought it was useful for backports
> that happen downstream.
> 
> > i.e. we have sometimes backported bits to simplify further backporting
> > elsewhere, which is fine and up to the stable team of course, but I am
> > not sure if using Option 1 (i.e. the Cc tag) may be a bit confusing in
> > the log, i.e. Option 2 or 3 offer a better chance to give a reason.
> 
> Using a different option makes sense to me.

On the other hand, I think that the first patch qualifies as an actual
fix.

Alice