Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] rust: workqueue: add creation of workqueues

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 04:30:59PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri Feb 27, 2026 at 3:53 PM CET, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > +    /// Set the maximum number of active cpus.
> > +    ///
> > +    /// If not set, a reasonable default value is used. The maximum value is `WQ_MAX_ACTIVE`.
> 
> Should we just mention the default value?

I can mention the constant name, but I'd like to avoid mentioning a
value that might change.

> > +    #[inline]
> > +    pub fn max_active(mut self, max_active: u32) -> Builder {
> > +        self.max_active = i32::try_from(max_active).unwrap_or(i32::MAX);
> 
> The workqueue code prints a warning for max_active >  WQ_MAX_ACTIVE. Maybe use
> debug_assert()?

What's wrong with just making use of the C-side warning?

> It's also a bit unfortunate that alloc_ordered_workqueue() becomes
> .max_active(1).
> 
> At the same time having a separate ordered() method competes with max_active().
> 
> Mybe a type state, i.e. Builder<Ordered> that doesn't have max_active()?

Sorry I'm a bit confused by this. Why does an ordered() compete with
max_active()?

Alice