From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from forward501d.mail.yandex.net (forward501d.mail.yandex.net [178.154.239.209]) (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 CF241230996; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.154.239.209 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750768754; cv=none; b=mV1Kpri6Y7/uQMDEFWTBwHlKDzL+DobN+0FLOwpgwC906Nh2Q5SBk3X58ixa172lrFxB21vZ8bS9wAM/in8cgw4/2k0FiKTLn7dV1osMqWQ6jgZ5WOW7dRhMnAWcBYPVHGPySVGZi5KJo5jIuqVPk81XI88+6JFHNnTtBrFJBwI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750768754; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IiZvAA3FleTUiDWA3EVVuuyPPqVxWqgsxdcovX1m2xg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kSVg86QDW3+lZQ5KmKi9nD+xbsRFys3w05PGKtJ7vbF/F1bSQUR9nJQk8YeNl2iNtadk1XCF5a7FTbiMb6G4ZCyzg17SVjhaqdc6ddI24938iriHjKX3FcNzTmUrkISh2z4nk0XWWXAF2jLTlA3OS+8wvNEUHTC3AalTlVWZpbY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=onurozkan.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=onurozkan.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onurozkan.dev header.i=@onurozkan.dev header.b=PKF81/DS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.154.239.209 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=onurozkan.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=onurozkan.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onurozkan.dev header.i=@onurozkan.dev header.b="PKF81/DS" Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-81.klg.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-81.klg.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c42:832b:0:640:fda5:0]) by forward501d.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTPS id 0F5F661A1F; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:31:10 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-81.klg.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id 4VSEOs8LaeA0-juFvfTtH; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:31:08 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=onurozkan.dev; s=mail; t=1750768269; bh=KUzUZlPWU3SLSvntobllY0hRQ6erceKcqtakC8llS30=; h=Cc:Message-ID:Subject:Date:References:To:From:In-Reply-To; b=PKF81/DS5QIdXChUVJRELAbFDbbjMSk6Zhd0TJmV3md1Art5XzZuq8Ua3WNksVxHD /J327gmOHntnzMqVRBcj5qtBasPiJajsEXHfyOAp8XHJykcWm3KaT5fa3pl6MpjB7G qu4FRG7y6EK6KCXMxCq/0f4G4TIjcObdueQ6IBgI= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-81.klg.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@onurozkan.dev Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:31:02 +0300 From: Onur To: "Benno Lossin" Cc: "Boqun Feng" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree Message-ID: <20250624153102.3961f377@nimda.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20250621184454.8354-1-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250621184454.8354-3-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250624083437.1e50d54c@nimda.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:20:48 +0200 "Benno Lossin" wrote: > On Tue Jun 24, 2025 at 7:34 AM CEST, Onur wrote: > > Should we handle this in the initial implementation or leave it for > > follow-up patches after the core abstraction of ww_mutex has landed? > > Since you're writing these abstractions specifically for usage in > drm, I think we should look at the intended use-cases there and then > decide on an API. > > So maybe Lyude or Dave can chime in :) > > If you (or someone else) have another user for this API that needs it > ASAP, then we can think about merging this and improve it later. But > if we don't have a user, then we shouldn't merge it anyways. I don't think this is urgent, but it might be better to land the basic structure first and improve it gradually I think? I would be happy to continue working for the improvements as I don't plan to leave it as just the initial version. I worked on the v5 review notes, but if we are going to consider designing a different API, then it doesn't make much sense to send a v6 patch before finishing the design, which requires additional people in the topic. That would also mean some of the ongoing review discussion would be wasted. --- Regards, Onur