Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rust: xarray: add `insert` and `reserve`

[Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@kernel.org>]

"Tamir Duberstein" <tamird@gmail.com> writes:

> Add `Guard::{insert,reserve}` and `Guard::{insert,reserve}_limit`, which
> are akin to `__xa_{alloc,insert}` in C.
>
> Note that unlike `xa_reserve` which only ensures that memory is
> allocated, the semantics of `Reservation` are stricter and require
> precise management of the reservation. Indices which have been reserved
> can still be overwritten with `Guard::store`, which allows for C-like
> semantics if desired.
>
> `__xa_cmpxchg_raw` is exported to facilitate the semantics described
> above.
>
> Tested-by: Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>
> Reviewed-by: Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>

<cut>

> +    /// Stores an element somewhere in the given range of indices.
> +    ///
> +    /// On success, takes ownership of `ptr`.
> +    ///
> +    /// On failure, ownership returns to the caller.
> +    ///
> +    /// # Safety
> +    ///
> +    /// `ptr` must be `NULL` or have come from a previous call to `T::into_foreign`.
> +    unsafe fn alloc(


The naming of this method in C is confusing. Could we call it
insert_limit_raw on the Rust side?

Even though this is private, I think we should also document that the
effect of inserting NULL is to reserve the entry.

> +        &mut self,
> +        limit: impl ops::RangeBounds<u32>,
> +        ptr: *mut T::PointedTo,
> +        gfp: alloc::Flags,
> +    ) -> Result<usize> {
> +        // NB: `xa_limit::{max,min}` are inclusive.
> +        let limit = bindings::xa_limit {
> +            max: match limit.end_bound() {
> +                ops::Bound::Included(&end) => end,
> +                ops::Bound::Excluded(&end) => end - 1,
> +                ops::Bound::Unbounded => u32::MAX,
> +            },
> +            min: match limit.start_bound() {
> +                ops::Bound::Included(&start) => start,
> +                ops::Bound::Excluded(&start) => start + 1,
> +                ops::Bound::Unbounded => 0,
> +            },
> +        };
> +
> +        let mut index = u32::MAX;
> +
> +        // SAFETY:
> +        // - `self.xa` is always valid by the type invariant.
> +        // - `self.xa` was initialized with `XA_FLAGS_ALLOC` or `XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1`.
> +        //
> +        // INVARIANT: `ptr` is either `NULL` or came from `T::into_foreign`.
> +        match unsafe {
> +            bindings::__xa_alloc(
> +                self.xa.xa.get(),
> +                &mut index,
> +                ptr.cast(),
> +                limit,
> +                gfp.as_raw(),
> +            )
> +        } {
> +            0 => Ok(to_usize(index)),
> +            errno => Err(Error::from_errno(errno)),
> +        }
> +    }
> +
> +    /// Allocates an entry somewhere in the array.

Should we rephrase this to match `alloc`?

  Stores an entry somewhere in the given range of indices.

<cut>

> +impl<T: ForeignOwnable> Reservation<'_, T> {
> +    /// Returns the index of the reservation.
> +    pub fn index(&self) -> usize {
> +        self.index
> +    }
> +
> +    /// Replaces the reserved entry with the given entry.
> +    ///
> +    /// # Safety
> +    ///
> +    /// `ptr` must be `NULL` or have come from a previous call to `T::into_foreign`.

We should document the effect of replacing with NULL.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg