Re: Rust kernel policy

Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-19T13:40:30Z

On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 14:25 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 12:39, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 16:35 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:20, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 13:22 -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > FWIW, usually Rust code has doc tests allowing you to run it
> > > > > with
> > > > > kunit,
> > > > > see:
> > > > >
> > > > >       https://docs.kernel.org/rust/testing.html
> > > >
> > > > I know this document and this was what I used to compile DMA
> > > > patches.
> > > > Then I ended up into "no test, no go" state :-)
> > > >
> > > > I put this is way. If that is enough, or perhaps combined with
> > > > submitting-patches.rst, why this email thread exists?
> > >
> > > There is users for the DMA stuff (now there should be some more
> > > tests), the problem is posting the users involves all the
> > > precursor
> > > patches for a bunch of other subsystems,
> > >
> > > There's no nice way to get this all bootstrapped, two methods
> > > are:
> > >
> > > a) posting complete series crossing subsystems, people get pissed
> > > off
> > > and won't review because it's too much
> > > b) posting series for review that don't have a full user in the
> > > series, people get pissed off because of lack of users.
> > >
> > > We are mostly moving forward with (b) initially, this gets rust
> > > folks
> > > to give reviews and point out any badly thought out rust code,
> > > and
> > > give others some ideas for what the code looks like and that it
> > > exists
> > > so others don't reinvent the wheel.
> > >
> > > Maybe we can add more rust tests to that particular patch series?
> > > but
> > > this is the wrong thread to discuss it, so maybe ask on that
> > > thread
> > > rather on this generic thread.
> >
> > Here's one way to do it:
> >
> > 1. Send the patch set as it is.
>
> You mean the series from b) above, right?
> (To be repeated for each subsystem for which you have such a series).

Ya.
>
> > 2. Point out to Git tree with branch containing the patches +
> > patches
> >    for e.g. driver (hopefully for something that QEMU is able to
> > emulate)
> >    and other stuff/shenanigans that allows to test them.
>
> Exactly.

OK, great. As long as I have some reasonable means to put it live,
I'm totally fine.

>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>

BR, Jarkko