Re: [PATCH 11/22] rust: split "bql" crate

[Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 02:41:33PM +0400, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:41:33 +0400
> From: marcandre.lureau@redhat.com
> Subject: [PATCH 11/22] rust: split "bql" crate
> 
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> 
> Unfortunately, an example had to be compile-time disabled, since it
> relies on higher level crates (qdev, irq etc). The alternative is
> probably to move that code to an example in qemu-api or elsewere and
> make a link to it, or include_str.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> ---

[snip]

> index 0000000000..ef08221e9c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/rust/bql/src/lib.rs
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +
> +mod bindings;
> +use bindings::{bql_block_unlock, bql_locked, rust_bql_mock_lock};
> +
> +mod cell;
> +pub use cell::*;
> +
> +/// An internal function that is used by doctests.
> +pub fn start_test() {
> +    // SAFETY: integration tests are run with --test-threads=1, while
> +    // unit tests and doctests are not multithreaded and do not have
> +    // any BQL-protected data.  Just set bql_locked to true.
> +    unsafe {
> +        rust_bql_mock_lock();
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +pub fn is_locked() -> bool {

I prefer the original names: bql_locked()...

> +    // SAFETY: the function does nothing but return a thread-local bool
> +    unsafe { bql_locked() }
> +}
> +
> +pub fn block_unlock(increase: bool) {

... and bql_block_unlock.

> +    // SAFETY: this only adjusts a counter
> +    unsafe {
> +        bql_block_unlock(increase);
> +    }
> +}

The consistent naming can help C developers become familiar with the
same interfaces in Rust.

And we will have more and more lock bindings - add lock name in the
method name could help avoid confusion.

Others LGTM, so

Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>