[PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[Miguel Ojeda]

Commit

  ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")

from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit

  e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")

from the fwctl tree added a new use.

Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:

    error[E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
       --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
        |
    465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
        |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`

Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
---
 rust/kernel/fwctl.rs | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/fwctl.rs b/rust/kernel/fwctl.rs
index e6a8513a47d0..f29244fb0d1d 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/fwctl.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/fwctl.rs
@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ impl<T: Operations> VTable<T> {
         // `uctx_size`.
         unsafe {
             device.with_registration_data(|device, reg_data| {
-                match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
+                match pin_init::raw_try_init(uctx_ptr, T::open(device, reg_data)) {
                     Ok(()) => 0,
                     Err(e) => e.to_errno(),
                 }

base-commit: e6664f2b33db9b6811eb4cec109f06cb2b4f458d
--
2.55.0

Re: [PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Commit
> 
>   ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")
> 
> from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit
> 
>   e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")
> 
> from the fwctl tree added a new use.
> 
> Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:
> 
>     error[E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
>        --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
>         |
>     465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
>         |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`

If you delete functions like this then you break everyone elses branches :|

I can't use this patch:

465 |              match pin_init::raw_try_init(uctx_ptr, T::open(device, reg_data)) {
    |                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in `pin_init`


Linus will have to fix this as a merge conflict.

Jason

Re: [PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[Gary Guo]

On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 1:55 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> Commit
>> 
>>   ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")
>> 
>> from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit
>> 
>>   e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")
>> 
>> from the fwctl tree added a new use.
>> 
>> Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:
>> 
>>     error[E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
>>        --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
>>         |
>>     465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
>>         |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`
>
> If you delete functions like this then you break everyone elses branches :|

I'm not sure how this break everyone elses' branches? It only breaks linux-next
but that's why it exists in the first place, to catch tree conflicts.

>
> I can't use this patch:
>
> 465 |              match pin_init::raw_try_init(uctx_ptr, T::open(device, reg_data)) {
>     |                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in `pin_init`
>
>
> Linus will have to fix this as a merge conflict.

This patch is sent as a semantic conflict resolution so yes it should be applied
by Linus.

For the removal of the function: Initially I plan to do this removal for
multiple cycles. However when I apply this near rc6 there wasn't any new users
introducing the usage of it so I proceed to remove it the same cycle.

If we want to do a cycle's grace period then reverting commit 1f7fa1374d3b
("rust: pin-init: remove `__pinned_init` method for `cfg(kernel)`") should be
sufficient. That said, I am not sure it's worth doing.

Best,
Gary

Re: [PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 02:11:57PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 1:55 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >> Commit
> >> 
> >>   ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")
> >> 
> >> from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit
> >> 
> >>   e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")
> >> 
> >> from the fwctl tree added a new use.
> >> 
> >> Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:
[E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
> >>        --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
> >>         |
> >>     465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
> >>         |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`
> >
> > If you delete functions like this then you break everyone elses branches :|
> 
> I'm not sure how this break everyone elses' branches? It only breaks linux-next
> but that's why it exists in the first place, to catch tree
> conflicts.

linux-next is to catch missed things, you shouldn't use it to
purposefully cause conflicts during the merge window..

So for example introduce your new API and do some conversions, then
remove the old API down the road after the merge window is a more
expected work flow.

> > I can't use this patch:
> >
> > 465 |              match pin_init::raw_try_init(uctx_ptr, T::open(device, reg_data)) {
> >     |                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in `pin_init`
> >
> >
> > Linus will have to fix this as a merge conflict.
> 
> This patch is sent as a semantic conflict resolution so yes it should be applied
> by Linus.

That's not really how things work. Now Miguel and I both have to send
Linus a pointer to this hunk because we don't know what order he will
merge the branches in, and last one to get merged needs him to put
this in the merge commit.

> If we want to do a cycle's grace period then reverting commit 1f7fa1374d3b
> ("rust: pin-init: remove `__pinned_init` method for `cfg(kernel)`") should be
> sufficient. That said, I am not sure it's worth doing.

Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to understand the expected work flow
as rust grows bigger.

Jason

Re: [PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

[Gary Guo]

On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 2:20 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 02:11:57PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
>> On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 1:55 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> >> Commit
>> >> 
>> >>   ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")
>> >> 
>> >> from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit
>> >> 
>> >>   e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")
>> >> 
>> >> from the fwctl tree added a new use.
>> >> 
>> >> Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:
> [E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
>> >>        --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
>> >>         |
>> >>     465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
>> >>         |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`
>> >
>> > If you delete functions like this then you break everyone elses branches :|
>> 
>> I'm not sure how this break everyone elses' branches? It only breaks linux-next
>> but that's why it exists in the first place, to catch tree
>> conflicts.
>
> linux-next is to catch missed things, you shouldn't use it to
> purposefully cause conflicts during the merge window..

That is an accusation that I find unacceptable. The API removal commit lands in
linux-next almost 10 days before you pick the Rust fwctl series. The conflict
between rust and fwctl tree doesn't exist in next-20260814, the last linux-next
tag before Miguel sent the PR to Linus. How come I am purposefully causing
conflicts?

> So for example introduce your new API and do some conversions, then
> remove the old API down the road after the merge window is a more
> expected work flow.

I'd happily keep the old API for an additional cycle before removing it, if I
knew that there'll be additional users. However I couldn't predict that new
users will be added late in the cycle after I sent my pull request.

Best,
Gary