From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from forward500d.mail.yandex.net (forward500d.mail.yandex.net [178.154.239.208]) (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 3970C1E32D6; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 12:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.154.239.208 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751115352; cv=none; b=RPF15Z87HsviIqOkjPXhDDTH6VKM9m9f/ZMz2fjk0rYuOLYHIrwbdraJd1+xml3m+3YlUpv0GJeBePJ1MlIKLUrFjHbaSu3lwgnDnRxpChke4dsPQ+qnjg5UPX3CVHxn42OhKoUsGg6iicFY3sqCiOoCOaGGOlWAK9Dexn4Z7zM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751115352; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S7++PTAr4xAkYMbCgcR89+yGuk3BpPCWsV/+d4CP3oM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Nc4IZIHFYmemK581LmI265LGQzOjU05eIdigeVZXtkYyNulAkHoQK4g07CzsJ83YguTC66tFnQgLCNwOmS44VH15+tiB1Y98IsR1uFj+Xr1sy58/zKf8/rMm4rvPk5Qz0cN4zExwuOWtFS7m39Tjgsi29j3bMmTA9lqpzMLMAHo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=onurozkan.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=onurozkan.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onurozkan.dev header.i=@onurozkan.dev header.b=Rv9Y53q4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.154.239.208 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=onurozkan.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=onurozkan.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onurozkan.dev header.i=@onurozkan.dev header.b="Rv9Y53q4" Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-73.iva.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-73.iva.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0c:bca0:0:640:380a:0]) by forward500d.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTPS id 58A7B6186F; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:48:43 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-73.iva.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id bmWfNHHLlSw0-XeRbLXHj; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:48:42 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=onurozkan.dev; s=mail; t=1751114922; bh=ET/LhC8QU7n+a3hSVOWcQEFar31KwcGnUYMpx7mD4JY=; h=Cc:Message-ID:Subject:Date:References:To:From:In-Reply-To; b=Rv9Y53q41/X4ucraT7PqIEN6T52TlIy8XH/+OGQzaNmNRU786Bf+1FVa/020sI15D 14EbGI63y5peJj2y0CaM/gokUSC1Ouhz1H0fejxfK/09EL75jgHCH5xGbVgXNi1dWw 4blxx8kcKKplcizUveC+JUbOMrpvNWRPI36Qb4YA= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-73.iva.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@onurozkan.dev Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:48:35 +0300 From: Onur To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, airlied@gmail.com, simona@ffwll.ch, ojeda@kernel.org, alex.gaynor@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, gary@garyguo.net, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com, lossin@kernel.org, a.hindborg@kernel.org, aliceryhl@google.com, tmgross@umich.edu, rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, mripard@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de, davidgow@google.com, nm@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] rust: remove `#[allow(clippy::non_send_fields_in_send_ty)]` Message-ID: <20250628154835.4e2e4a92@nimda.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20250628040956.2181-1-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250628040956.2181-4-work@onurozkan.dev> <20250628133013.703461c8@nimda.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:18:53 +0200 Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > IMO, we should require people to add a comment explaining the reason > > for adding these lint rules to the codebase. It would make both > > reading and modifying the code much simpler and clearer. > > Do you mean using the lint reasons feature? IIRC we discussed at some > point doing that when the feature was added (we enabled it for the > `expect` side of things). Yeah, I meant that it't taking more effort than it should, like digging through historical changes in the relevant parts of the source code, trying to figuring out whether it was just a false positive or if there was a specific reason behind it, etc.