Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: pci: impl TryFrom<&Device> for &pci::Device

[Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 06:32:53PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Mon Mar 24, 2025 at 7:13 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:36:45PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> On Mon Mar 24, 2025 at 5:49 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 04:39:25PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> >> On Sun Mar 23, 2025 at 11:10 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 11:10:57AM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 08:25:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >> >> >> > Along these lines, if you can convince me that this is something that we
> >> >> >> > really should be doing, in that we should always be checking every time
> >> >> >> > someone would want to call to_pci_dev(), that the return value is
> >> >> >> > checked, then why don't we also do this in C if it's going to be
> >> >> >> > something to assure people it is going to be correct?  I don't want to
> >> >> >> > see the rust and C sides get "out of sync" here for things that can be
> >> >> >> > kept in sync, as that reduces the mental load of all of us as we travers
> >> >> >> > across the boundry for the next 20+ years.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I think in this case it is good when the C and Rust side get a bit
> >> >> >> "out of sync":
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A bit more clarification on this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What I want to say with this is, since we can cover a lot of the common cases
> >> >> > through abstractions and the type system, we're left with the not so common
> >> >> > ones, where the "upcasts" are not made in the context of common and well
> >> >> > established patterns, but, for instance, depend on the semantics of the driver;
> >> >> > those should not be unsafe IMHO.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I don't think that we should use `TryFrom` for stuff that should only be
> >> >> used seldomly. A function that we can document properly is a much better
> >> >> fit, since we can point users to the "correct" API.
> >> >
> >> > Most of the cases where drivers would do this conversion should be covered by
> >> > the abstraction to already provide that actual bus specific device, rather than
> >> > a generic one or some priv pointer, etc.
> >> >
> >> > So, the point is that the APIs we design won't leave drivers with a reason to
> >> > make this conversion in the first place. For the cases where they have to
> >> > (which should be rare), it's the right thing to do. There is not an alternative
> >> > API to point to.
> >> 
> >> Yes, but for such a case, I wouldn't want to use `TryFrom`, since that
> >> trait to me is a sign of a canonical way to convert a value.
> >
> > Well, it is the canonical way to convert, it's just that by the design of other
> > abstractions drivers should very rarely get in the situation of needing it in
> > the first place.
> 
> I'd still prefer it though, since one can spot a
> 
>     let dev = CustomDevice::checked_from(dev)?
> 
> much better in review than the `try_from` conversion. It also prevents
> one from giving it to a generic interface expecting the `TryFrom` trait.

(I plan to rebase this on my series introducing the Bound device context [1].)

I thought about this for a while and I still think TryFrom is fine here.

At some point I want to replace this implementation with a macro, since the code
is pretty similar for bus specific devices. I think that's a bit cleaner with
TryFrom compared to with a custom method, since we'd need the bus specific
device to call the macro from the generic impl, i.e.

	impl<Ctx: DeviceContext> Device<Ctx>

rather than a specific one, which we can't control. We can control it for
TryFrom though.

However, I also do not really object to your proposal, hence I'm willing to make
the change.

Do you want to make a proposal for the corresponding doc comment switching to a
custom method?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250331202805.338468-1-dakr@kernel.org/