Re: [PATCH 2/5] rust: sync: add const constructor for raw_spinlock_t

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 08:52:54PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 03:38:05PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > +// Explicitly list architectures where this logic is checked correct.
> > +#[cfg(any(
> > +    CONFIG_ARM,
> > +    CONFIG_ARM64,
> > +    CONFIG_LOONGARCH,
> > +    CONFIG_PPC,
> > +    CONFIG_RISCV,
> > +    CONFIG_S390,
> > +    CONFIG_X86,
> > +))]
> 
> I guess this is done explicitly because we can't test if
> __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED is defined by the arch?

There are some arches where zeros is not the right value here, so when
someone adds Rust on a new arch, I want to make sure that person has to
look at this function and determine whether all-zeros is valid for that
particular arch or not.

> Looks good to me,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>

Thanks!

Alice