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 13A652BEC57; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:36:43 +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=1764009404; cv=none; b=RWaFZDVtCKZEZDXFKFyV5qmXZjm85pgt9S3AF9N6A2GaRx2+pn/SeKu5WDCUQF0pPXOlRDHP68/bC0EmOO3DzGJBw5t0jSlYZ3RCJRvAHDtLudThYYojxtiET40Gd7VjprJDnqD6UfvJIEQ6KOsT1ad8WJOQLJ6uosSDVOmMCfA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764009404; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jMxics1T7D2zTTTxC0vYNoJLPcTUUbdGJ0mccHHyjHI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ue3BNbmShXrEJYOpM8so6cepCwNWTe4pAgYSPhsE22DLwqMfVW2GNry3NK98EsQu5A1lS9vTxrdCeoYmdexoqNI1mBqnpWWB3VW+HcFH+cywSLNMFjj7oLlpEVrsc2zZLFQDAWf3S4GfXWbstERmLDH5P7IBKFPBCFxz57aVT0g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Y1fSJT7H; 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="Y1fSJT7H" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A174C4CEF1; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:36:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1764009403; bh=jMxics1T7D2zTTTxC0vYNoJLPcTUUbdGJ0mccHHyjHI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Y1fSJT7HmKhn2wr95Fzte+w0fDStdZ19Koc4ocZ9w9Lv1ZKt3nVWLGlA26AZcYIBd XKfwmqWPffprf14DmbfY6Hm5j/1/ejPGlDlwNuFIRw1N0GPXXidPvbRI1kZRjDkUst lxlN7EigtVgqc+fIfhuxCNIlYXK4ef8i04srNtF1wifrLNEVNM+NR7SpOAcbdGrg7v hihOY/jKZ7DoINdso0BUTLv4L5A9BvRRkePHheh15RSGNoF7D2cJfXEluSf/P5lGfT f4QtlDZ7HjBA/60fv0OV4KvirM84SvnkcqHiqUqHjnG8bEuDjFwXa/TWHaZHPowV6h Vynb3itZkcYog== Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:36:34 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Asuna Yang , Nicolas Schier , Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Alice Ryhl , Trevor Gross , Danilo Krummrich , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Nicolas Schier , Jonathan Corbet , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Vivian Wang , Han Gao , Jason Montleon , Conor Dooley , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] rust: add a Kconfig function to test for support of bindgen options Message-ID: <20251124183634.GA1084995@ax162> References: <20251124-gcc-rust-v4-v4-0-4e06e07421ae@gmail.com> <20251124-gcc-rust-v4-v4-3-4e06e07421ae@gmail.com> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 04:08:36AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 3:42 AM Asuna Yang wrote: > > > > I will separate them into two functions in the next revision, > > `bindgen-option` and `bindgen-backend-option` (or `bindgen-cc-option`? > > Which one do you prefer?). > > If we don't need `bindgen-option` (the normal one I mean) so far, > perhaps we should skip it. On the other hand, `rustc-option-yn` is > there and is not used either (it was added for consistency). Up to the > Kbuild team, I guess. I do not have a strong preference one way or the other. These macros tend to be low maintenance and do not take up much space regardless so preemptively adding it so that it is ready for use in the future is no big deal in my opinion. > As for the name, no strong preference. `bindgen-backend-option` sounds > good, but `bindgen-cc-option` is more consistent with `cc-option` and > probably easier to understand for people new to `bindgen`, and anyway > the flags we pass there wouldn't make sense if the backend is not a C > compiler. Yeah, I think either one sort of requires knowledge of bindgen to know the difference between a flag to bindgen and a flag to the C compiler behind bindgen so no strong preference from my side (Nicolas may feel differently). Cheers, Nathan