Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: lock: Add an example for Guard::lock_ref()

Andreas Hindborg
2025-02-25T05:52:56Z

"Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@proton.me> writes:

> On 24.02.25 12:15, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> "Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@proton.me> writes:
>>
>>> On 24.02.25 09:08, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>>> Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> To provide examples on usage of `Guard::lock_ref()` along with the unit
>>>>> test, an "assert a lock is held by a guard" example is added.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This depends on Alice's patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250130-guard-get-lock-v1-1-8ed87899920a@google.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also OK to fold this in if Alice thinks it's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
>>>>> index 3701fac6ebf6..6d868e35b0a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
>>>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
>>>>> @@ -201,6 +201,30 @@ unsafe impl<T: Sync + ?Sized, B: Backend> Sync for Guard<'_, T, B> {}
>>>>>
>>>>> impl<'a, T: ?Sized, B: Backend> Guard<'a, T, B> {
>>>>> /// Returns the lock that this guard originates from.
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// # Examples
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// The following example shows how to use [`Guard::lock_ref()`] to assert the corresponding
>>>>> + /// lock is held.
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// ```
>>>>> + /// # use kernel::{new_spinlock, stack_pin_init, sync::lock::{Backend, Guard, Lock}};
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// fn assert_held<T, B: Backend>(guard: &Guard<'_, T, B>, lock: &Lock<T, B>) {
>>>>> + /// // Address-equal means the same lock.
>>>>> + /// assert!(core::ptr::eq(guard.lock_ref(), lock));
>>>>> + /// }
>>>>
>>>> This seems super useful. Perhaps add this method as part of the lock api
>>>> instead of just having it in the example?
>>>
>>> I don't think it should be an assert. Instead make it return a
>>> `Result<(), ()>`. (or create better named unit error types)
>>
>> No, this should not be part of usual control flow, and developers should
>> not make control flow decisions based on this. It would always be an
>> assertion. But you are right that `assert!` is probably not what we
>> want. `debug_assert!` might be fine though.
>
> I agree, that it shouldn't be used for driver logic, but you still might
> want to warn/warn_once instead of panic (or debug_assert).

It might be useful to have an `assert!` that just does `pr_once!` on
failed assertion. I sort of said I would pick up the `pr_once!` patches,
so perhaps I should add that?

Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg