Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support

Andrew Lunn
2024-06-16T00:51:28Z

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:59:58AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Implementation-wise, if you think it is simpler or more clear/elegant
> to have the extra lower level layer, then that sounds fine.
>
> However, I was mainly talking about what we would eventually expose to
> users, i.e. do we want to provide `Atomic<T>` to begin with? If yes,
> then we could make the lower layer private already.
>
> We can defer that extra layer/work if needed even if we go for
> `Atomic<T>`, but it would be nice to understand if we have consensus
> for an eventual user-facing API, or if someone has any other opinion
> or concerns on one vs. the other.

Since this is fully compatible to LKMM atomic operations, is there a
use case for C and Rust operating on the same atomic value? And then
you will need to specify the size, or odd things are likely to happen
if they disagree on size. With Atomic<T> can we easily say what type
the underlying implementation uses?

Andrew