Re: [PATCH v4] rust: add global lock support

Boqun Feng
2024-10-10T16:33:43Z

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 07:29:32AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 03:58:07PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 3:55 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:53:00PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > +#[macro_export]
> > > > > > +macro_rules! global_lock {
> > > > > > + {
> > > > > > + $(#[$meta:meta])* $pub:vis static $name:ident: $kind:ident<$valuety:ty> = unsafe { uninit };
> > > > > > + value: $value:expr;
> > > > >
> > > > > I would find it more natural to use `=` instead of `:` here, since then
> > > > > it would read as a normal statement with the semicolon at the end.
> > > > > Another alternative would be to use `,` instead of `;`, but that doesn't
> > > > > work nicely with the static keyword above (although you could make the
> > > > > user write it in another {}, but that also isn't ideal...).
> > > > >
> > > > > Using `=` instead of `:` makes my editor put the correct amount of
> > > > > indentation there, `:` adds a lot of extra spaces.
> > > >
> > > > That seems sensible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > While we are at it, how about we make the syntax:
> > >
> > > global_lock!{
> > > static MY_LOCK: Mutex<u32> = unsafe { 0 };
> > > }
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > global_lock!{
> > > static MY_LOCK: Mutex<u32> = unsafe { uninit { 0 } };
> > > }
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > i.e. instead of a "value" field, we put it in the "initialization
> > > expression". To me, this make it more clear that "value" is the
> > > initialized value protected by the lock. Thoughts?
> >
> > `uninit { 0 }` looks pretty terrible IMO. Can we come up with something better?
> >
>

how about:

global_lock!{
static MY_LOCK: Mutex<u32> = unsafe { data: 0 };
}

?

"data: " will make it clear that the value is not for the lock state.
"uninit" is dropped because the "unsafe" already requires the global
variable to be initialised first. Or "unsafe { uninit, data: 0 }" if you
want to keep the "uninit" part?

Regards,
Boqun …