From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 2FBCB2BD59C; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:48:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750769327; cv=none; b=tmys1+uW6go2utLVEXxhfyop2JAbq+88Sk8s9uMRV5Q5lr0u2gTXh1wd/lBwHakHUS8xcI4c6kzMXVUYcG5Vox7ANj0/Cu/uHkcybo1nJKZjp+VpZJr9yeHlbKd1btonjVYrSGq6dYeE3qNnUsOhNYevwnjczGKLVLMmLuew9pQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750769327; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tP4bo0nKPQxjqvAvCgRkhsp1e4XImh4zH8iqxHKFAZc=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=SKhxfcB7uTFXIhQhbrpogHZYXhRqlWHJp1xQiUmliGcpzA/Q4y3W6cpuM9BnodWNa6cfzwBGwCBzauNZ3ZXmIpZYP2npdkt6lYUYbaot6cCUVC7IC2s6kpAimnLwSwJibMdUwXx8UlhD4FxWbZLyAiSUCiJMt0LxeMcHR5FC9Kw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qZ+OIKBL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qZ+OIKBL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 221AAC4CEE3; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:48:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1750769325; bh=tP4bo0nKPQxjqvAvCgRkhsp1e4XImh4zH8iqxHKFAZc=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qZ+OIKBLrFvFkfxsR5MIjH2l+GMeUdJ3LvE6in7YKt8ZOlrdvYvTvGdUPiITX+Hci IAUAG5FOl960IuncqFsT4sCckdvrwyVGTK3t+hqXliRYnEHYFQdQ6FOXLSAexzegUG CkDOi3rib7zM3USAYCGKlx4rPa9QT3sleQhH/wPnIApaJrzDaEoGsNffh5dUlhRo0T Q+hC/mnpj8MT7zlckl7TmIBqpamxI+HMgRPCwYn2ORln9cZjxHKRjVzfNiOmij/fvm 3ztY/gCPEN16LIxzHgZiRBma1oGeGBiIc3rPiUga5y5Xqul22RAcueJSmpl8W3BDw+ BsacP4oqOPr1w== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:48:39 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "Boqun Feng" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree From: "Benno Lossin" To: "Onur" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: <20250621184454.8354-1-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250621184454.8354-3-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250624083437.1e50d54c@nimda.home> <20250624153102.3961f377@nimda.home> In-Reply-To: <20250624153102.3961f377@nimda.home> On Tue Jun 24, 2025 at 2:31 PM CEST, Onur wrote: > 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? >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> So maybe Lyude or Dave can chime in :) >>=20 >> 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 don't think we should land the basic API when we don't have a user in-tree or blessed by the maintainers. > 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. I would just wait for DRM to say something :) --- Cheers, Benno