Re: [PATCH] rust: Enable the new_uninit feature for kernel and driver crates

[Andreas Hindborg <nmi@metaspace.dk>]

Asahi Lina <lina@asahilina.net> writes:

> On 27/02/2023 22.09, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> 
>> Asahi Lina <lina@asahilina.net> writes:
>> 
>>> The unstable new_uninit feature enables various library APIs to create
>>> uninitialized containers, such as `Box::assume_init()`. This is
>>> necessary to build abstractions that directly initialize memory at the
>>> target location, instead of doing copies through the stack.
>>>
>>> Will be used by the DRM scheduler abstraction in the kernel crate, and
>>> by field-wise initialization (e.g. using `place!()` or a future
>>> replacement macro which may itself live in `kernel`) in driver crates.
>>>
>>> See [1] [2] [3] for background information.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/879
>>> [2] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2
>>> [3] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63291
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@asahilina.net>
>>> ---
>>>  rust/kernel/lib.rs     | 1 +
>>>  scripts/Makefile.build | 2 +-
>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/lib.rs b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
>>> index 223564f9f0cc..1118cd3e0b5f 100644
>>> --- a/rust/kernel/lib.rs
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>  #![feature(core_ffi_c)]
>>>  #![feature(dispatch_from_dyn)]
>>>  #![feature(generic_associated_types)]
>>> +#![feature(new_uninit)]
>>>  #![feature(receiver_trait)]
>>>  #![feature(unsize)]
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build
>>> index a0d5c6cca76d..0f637e1ca8dc 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/Makefile.build
>>> +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build
>>> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ $(obj)/%.lst: $(src)/%.c FORCE
>>>  # Compile Rust sources (.rs)
>>>  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  
>>> -rust_allowed_features := core_ffi_c
>>> +rust_allowed_features := core_ffi_c,new_uninit
>> 
>> What is the purpose of adding the feature here? The kernel crate seems
>> to compile fine without this.
>
> It's for the upcoming DRM abstractions, as I mentioned in the commit
> message. There's so many dependencies that I'm trying to get as much as
> I can early to avoid having to review very big patchsets down the line ^^

I got confused on the different makefile rules used to build kernel
crate vs module crates. Looks good 👍

Reviewed-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>