Re: [PATCH v10 5/7] samples: rust: Add debugfs sample driver

[Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com>]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:40 PM Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:34 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 12:53 AM CEST, Matthew Maurer wrote:
> > > Adds a new sample driver that demonstrates the debugfs APIs.
> > >
> > > The driver creates a directory in debugfs and populates it with a few
> > > files:
> > > - A read-only file that displays a fwnode property.
> > > - A read-write file that exposes an atomic counter.
> > > - A read-write file that exposes a custom struct.
> > >
> > > This sample serves as a basic example of how to use the `debugfs::Dir`
> > > and `debugfs::File` APIs to create and manage debugfs entries.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com>
> >
> > This is a great example, thanks! I really like how the API turned out.
> >
> > When it comes to the newly added Scope API - and I assume this does not come at
> > a surprise - I have some concerns.
>
> Yes, I expected this to be the case, but inspired by some of the
> comments about wanting to just create files off fields and forget
> about them, I wanted to take one more crack at it.
>
> >
> > But first, thanks a lot for posting the socinfo driver in both variants, with
> > and without the Scope API.
> >
> > I had a brief look at both of those and I can see why you want this.
> >
> > With the Scope thing you can indeed write things a bit more compressed (I think
> > in the patches the differences looks quite a bit bigger than it actually is,
> > because the scope-based one uses quite some code from the file-based one).
> >
> > I think the downsides are mainly:
> >
> >   - The degree of complexity added for a rather specific use-case, that is also
> >     perfectly representable with the file-based API.
> I don't *think* this is just for this use case - if I just wanted to
> improve the DebugFS use case, I'd mostly be looking at additional code
Edit: Socinfo use case
> for `pin-init` (adding an `Option` placement + a few ergonomic
> improvements to `pin_init` would slim off a large chunk of the code).
> The idea here was that a file might not always directly correspond to
> a field in a data structure, and the `File` API forces it to be one.
> We could decide that forcing every file to be a data structure field
> is a good idea, but I'm not certain it is.
> >
> >   - It makes it convinient to expose multiple fields grouped under the same lock
> >     as separate files, which design wise we shouln't encourage for the reasons
> >     we discussed in v8.
> It's still pretty convenient to do this with `File`. I don't know how
> common it'll be in kernel code, but in userspace Rust, `Arc<Mutex<T>>`
> is a very common primitive. I would be unsurprised to see someone use
> this pattern to expose separate fields as separate files if we go with
> the `File` API.
> >
> > I think for the sake of getting this series merged, which I would really love to
> > see, I think we should focus on the file-based API first. Once we got this
> > landed I think we can still revisit the Scope idea and have some more discussion
> > about it.
>
> This is why I put the scope API and sample as patches on the end chain
> of the series - it is possible to merge only the `File`-based API if
> that's what we want to do first, and consider the rest later.
>
> >
> > I will have a more detailed look tomorrow (at least for the patches 1-5).
> >
> > Thanks again for working on this!
> >
> > - Danilo