Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] rust: sync: atomic: Add the framework of arithmetic operations

Benno Lossin
2025-07-11T19:08:13Z

On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 7:41 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 07:39:15AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> [...]
>> > > ---
>> > > rust/kernel/sync/atomic.rs | 18 +++++
>> > > rust/kernel/sync/atomic/generic.rs | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > I think it's better to name this trait `AtomicAdd` and make it generic:
>> >
>> > pub unsafe trait AtomicAdd<Rhs = Self>: AllowAtomic {
>> > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Rhs) -> Self::Repr;
>> > }
>> >
>> > `sub` and `fetch_sub` can be added using a similar trait.
>> >
>>
>> Seems a good idea, I will see what I can do. Thanks!
>>
>> > The generic allows you to implement it multiple times with different
>> > meanings, for example:
>> >
>> > pub struct Nanos(u64);
>> > pub struct Micros(u64);
>> > pub struct Millis(u64);
>> >
>> > impl AllowAtomic for Nanos {
>> > type Repr = i64;
>> > }
>> >
>> > impl AtomicAdd<Millis> for Nanos {
>> > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Millis) -> i64 {
>> > transmute(rhs.0 * 1000_000)
>>
>> We probably want to use `as` in real code?
>>
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > impl AtomicAdd<Micros> for Nanos {
>> > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Micros) -> i64 {
>> > transmute(rhs.0 * 1000)
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > impl AtomicAdd<Nanos> for Nanos {
>> > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Nanos) -> i64 {
>> > transmute(rhs.0)
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > For the safety requirement on the `AtomicAdd` trait, we might just
>> > require bi-directional transmutability... Or can you imagine a case
>> > where that is not guaranteed, but a weaker form is?
>>
>> I have a case that I don't think it's that useful, but it's similar to
>> the `Micros` and `Millis` above, an `Even<T>` where `Even<i32>` is a
>
> Oh I mis-read, it's not similar to `Micros` or `Millis`, but still,
> `Even<i32>` itself should have the point.
>
>> `i32` but it's always an even number ;-) So transmute<i32, Even<i32>>()
>> is not always sound. Maybe we could add a "TODO" in the safety section
>> of `AtomicAdd`, and revisit this later? Like:
>>
>> /// (in # Safety)
>> /// TODO: The safety requirement may be tightened to bi-directional
>> /// transmutability.
>>
>> And maybe also add the `Even` example there?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Or since we are going to use fine-grained traits, it's actually easy to
> define the safety requirement of `AtomicAdd` (instead of
> `AllowAtomicArithmetic) now:
>
> /// # Safety
> ///
> /// For a `T: AtomicAdd<Rhs>`, the addition result of a valid bit
> /// pattern of `T` and a `T::Repr` convert from `rhs_into_repr()` should
> /// be a valid bit pattern of `T`.

Let's combine our two safety requirement ideas (I forgot about my Rhs
change).

---
Cheers,
Benno

> pub unsafe trait AtomicAdd<Rhs = Self>: AllowAtomic {
> fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Rhs) -> Self::Repr;
> }
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Boqun