From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch (mail-4316.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A4AF15B118; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706780066; cv=none; b=Cn80PBZBgr/fPw770A3IkNKH9M7ICL3TkAGfeECvxFAwgiywsfj5scIOQj+Jm7J4VL9d66Kdn3Jc0SDqWsBwyUQbiSciPub8GA2AdV740qZHR1VA4tty+AGPxh+KO4hduv+eeK1LWDRWJZGZ8jL7/9+sNoGKROCCd2qz5slL8vA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706780066; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4DCJWDNY54pVWFJWSQe81n3ZGgHdx18f6qRCAFzEAVQ=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sulMSzSj5M47rV6pzjYZKFfzDu2xLW2rAhnGAIDFk5YdoKBLwR5Xly1WC9dehPMzeZ+Bca3NlLuz4+k8JXE0mV1jNl26ATXbix/71jO5IWIF2KzTaey68X8Z2TdCHUv6gEP0kqeOn0Gn7ldczmhAEafAr54YmOd6fPeaeRPs5Q0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b=jLp9ZHx/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b="jLp9ZHx/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=protonmail; t=1706780062; x=1707039262; bh=i2b20zoMNoEak8nrSmXQ3s/Guoh1bpSZ5F9Ndi7Z2IA=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=jLp9ZHx/c5Y8MqfrseK7YBvpjUXCY8y0S9/k/Il5AxxXmU0QcolE7Yv+vZhZuvPN5 otoJcRdGisGU02rinhWOp30ZE8fGgnMJxThyxwG52fNqICOgUPOXBOoX35vMffQipX FDTiLnxlhUsBQ/yN6oCrrCsfiUmjfoImlkVxg0OrFDCJg0qrcTwKC4YnY9MHLk2Abh WovcE6/6z40+y0ISAYF9Rk4bjvWsiS9R7ky/FNTNwztgsiCJWUqvilJfUi84B+mTQ1 YrQUik8V+lTZs6sIhlmj9zgAOOX9c/jRmeQfYEkc4xbXwVgOe+D8JDS9fv1HrSGmOu nPZ+OwXFxPYeA== Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:33:59 +0000 To: Alice Ryhl From: Benno Lossin Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Wedson Almeida Filho , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= , Andreas Hindborg , Peter Zijlstra , Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , Greg Kroah-Hartman , =?utf-8?Q?Arve_Hj=C3=B8nnev=C3=A5g?= , Todd Kjos , Martijn Coenen , Joel Fernandes , Carlos Llamas , Suren Baghdasaryan , Dan Williams , Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Gleixner , Daniel Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] rust: file: add abstraction for `poll_table` Message-ID: <50317af4-9f3c-4f72-bd8e-4e39fb4e108f@proton.me> In-Reply-To: References: <20240118-alice-file-v3-0-9694b6f9580c@google.com> <20240118-alice-file-v3-9-9694b6f9580c@google.com> <1ac11c65-7024-41c3-a788-cfcad8fb6c55@proton.me> Feedback-ID: 71780778:user:proton Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29.01.24 18:08, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:11=E2=80=AFAM Benno Lossin wrote: >> >> On 18.01.24 15:36, Alice Ryhl wrote: >>> +/// Wraps the kernel's `struct poll_table`. >>> +/// >>> +/// # Invariants >>> +/// >>> +/// This struct contains a valid `struct poll_table`. >>> +/// >>> +/// For a `struct poll_table` to be valid, its `_qproc` function must = follow the safety >>> +/// requirements of `_qproc` functions. It must ensure that when the w= aiter is removed and a rcu >> >> The first sentence sounds a bit weird, what is meant by `_qproc` functio= ns? >> Do you have a link to where that is defined? Or is the whole definition = the >> next sentence? >=20 > Yeah. Does this wording work better for you? >=20 > /// For a `struct poll_table` to be valid, its `_qproc` function must > follow the safety > /// requirements of `_qproc` functions: > /// > /// * The `_qproc` function is given permission to enqueue a waiter to Does it make sense to change "waiter" to `wait_queue_head`? > the provided `poll_table` > /// during the call. Once the waiter is removed and an rcu grace > period has passed, it must no > /// longer access the `wait_queue_head`. Yes that is better. --=20 Cheers, Benno