Re: [PATCH 03/13] rust: lock: introduce `Mutex`

[Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 10:20:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:47:12AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:39:44AM -0300, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> > > > From: Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@microsoft.com>
> > > > 
> > > > This is the `struct mutex` lock backend and allows Rust code to use the
> > > > kernel mutex idiomatically.
> > > 
> > > What, if anything, are the plans to support the various lockdep
> > > annotations? Idem for the spinlock thing in the other patch I suppose.
> > 
> > FWIW:
> > 
> > *	At the init stage, SpinLock and Mutex in Rust use initializers
> > 	that are aware of the lockdep, so everything (lockdep_map and
> > 	lock_class) is all set up.
> > 
> > *	At acquire or release time, Rust locks just use ffi to call C
> > 	functions that have lockdep annotations in them, so lockdep
> > 	should just work.
> > 
> 
> ffi is what the C++ world calls RAII ?

No, ffi is 'foreign function interface', it just means that the caller will use
the same ABI as the callee.

> But yes, I got that far, but I wondered about things like
> spin_lock_nested(&foo, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING) and other such 'advanced'
> annotations.
> 
> Surely we're going to be needing them at some point. I suppose you can
> do the single depth nesting one with a special guard type (or whatever
> you call that in the rust world) ?

I haven't looked at all the advanced annotations, but something like
spin_lock_nested/mutex_lock_nested can be exposed as a lock_nested() associated
function of the `Lock` type, so one would do:

  let guard = my_mutex.lock_nested(SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
  // Do something with data protected by my_mutex.