Re: [PATCH 3/7] rust: debugfs: support for binary large objects

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:01:03PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun Oct 19, 2025 at 11:44 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 4:37 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> > The reason I went with a trait is because that's consistent within the file.
> >> >
> >> > Otherwise, I don't mind one or the other. If we always want to use a struct, I'm
> >> > fine with that. :)
> >> 
> >> Actually, there's another reason I forgot about since I sent the series. :)
> >> 
> >> We need it because we derive it from blanket implementations:
> >> 
> >> 	impl<T: BinaryWriter + Sync> BinaryReadFile<T> for T
> >> 	impl<T: BinaryReader + Sync> BinaryWriteFile<T> for T
> >> 	impl<T: BinaryWriter + BinaryReader + Sync> BinaryReadWriteFile<T> for T
> >
> > You can still use a struct:
> >
> > struct BinaryWriterVtable<T: BinaryWriter + Sync>;
> >
> > impl<T: BinaryWriter + Sync> BinaryWriterVtable<T> {
> >     const VTABLE: bindings::foo = ...;
> > }
> 
> Yeah, but do we get something for adding yet another type in this case?
> 
> Another point to consider is if we want a more generic fops abstraction type.
> 
> In any case, I'd like to add this as good first issue for the whole file to be
> changed accordingly.

Yes, keep it as-is for consistency with the rest of the file, even if
the file is inconsistent with the rest of `kernel`. Please go ahead and
file a good-first-issue for this.

Alice