Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] rust: irq: add &Device<Bound> argument to irq callbacks

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:00:47PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 11 Aug 2025, at 13:03, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@collabora.com> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
> > 
> > When working with a bus device, many operations are only possible while
> > the device is still bound. The &Device<Bound> type represents a proof in
> > the type system that you are in a scope where the device is guaranteed
> > to still be bound. Since we deregister irq callbacks when unbinding a
> > device, if an irq callback is running, that implies that the device has
> > not yet been unbound.
> > 
> > To allow drivers to take advantage of that, add an additional argument
> > to irq callbacks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
> 
> Sorry. I forgot to add my SOB here.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this can be added when the patch is being applied in order to cut down on the
> number of versions, and therefore avoid the extra noise? Otherwise let me know.
> 

I think it's fine to submit with only Alice's SoB, my understanding is
that you won't necessarily need to add your SoB if you are simply
re-submitting a patch (with minor changes). There are changes where your
SoB is needed: 1) you change the code significantly, in which case, you
may also need to add "Co-Developed-by" for Alice as well; 2) you're
submitting the patch as a maintainer, and you have queued that patch
already somewhere in your tree, in this case SoB shows how the patch
flows around. Of course, either case it's better to sync with Alice
first, which I believe you have already done that.

While I'm at it,

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>

Regards,
Boqun

> Signed-off-by: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>
> 
>