[PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
lest build fails with the dreaded error:

    ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!

It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
(sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].

The cause, as pointed out by Gary Guo [3], appears to be that the
failing function is eventually using `build_assert` with its argument,
but is only annotated with `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom
to not inline the function, which it notably did when Clippy was active,
triggering the error.

The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
`build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.

This series fixes all possible points of failure in the kernel crate,
and adds documentation to `build_assert` explaining how to properly
inline functions for which this behavior may arise.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DEEUYUOAEZU3.1J1HM2YQ10EX1@nvidia.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/A1A280D4-836E-4D75-863E-30B1C276C80C@collabora.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251121143008.2f5acc33.gary@garyguo.net/

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Turn into a series and address other similar cases in the kernel crate.
- Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20251127-io-build-assert-v1-1-04237f2e5850@nvidia.com

---
Alexandre Courbot (7):
      rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments
      rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
      rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
      rust: bits: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
      rust: sync: refcount: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
      rust: irq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
      rust: num: bounded: add missing comment for always inlined function

 rust/kernel/bits.rs          | 6 ++++--
 rust/kernel/build_assert.rs  | 7 ++++++-
 rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs       | 2 ++
 rust/kernel/io.rs            | 9 ++++++---
 rust/kernel/io/resource.rs   | 2 ++
 rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs     | 2 ++
 rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs   | 1 +
 rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs | 3 ++-
 8 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 54e3eae855629702c566bd2e130d9f40e7f35bde
change-id: 20251127-io-build-assert-3579a5bfb81c

Best regards,
-- 
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>

[PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
lest build fails with the dreaded error:

    ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!

It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
(sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].

The cause appears to be that the failing function is eventually using
`build_assert` with its argument, but is only annotated with
`#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom to not inline the function,
which it notably did when Clippy was active, triggering the error.

The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
`build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.

Add a paragraph instructing to annotate such functions with
`#[inline(always)]` in `build_assert`'s documentation, and split its
example to illustrate.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/build_assert.rs | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
index 6331b15d7c4d..f8124dbc663f 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
@@ -61,8 +61,13 @@ macro_rules! build_error {
 ///     build_assert!(N > 1); // Build-time check
 ///     assert!(N > 1); // Run-time check
 /// }
+/// ```
 ///
-/// #[inline]
+/// When a condition depends on a function argument, the function must be annotated with
+/// `#[inline(always)]`. Without this attribute, the compiler may choose to not inline the
+/// function, preventing it from optimizing out the error path.
+/// ```
+/// #[inline(always)]
 /// fn bar(n: usize) {
 ///     // `static_assert!(n > 1);` is not allowed
 ///     build_assert!(n > 1); // Build-time check

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 11/27/25 6:11 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
> lest build fails with the dreaded error:
> 
>      ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!
> 
> It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
> (sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
> with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
> observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].
> 
> The cause appears to be that the failing function is eventually using
> `build_assert` with its argument, but is only annotated with
> `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom to not inline the function,
> which it notably did when Clippy was active, triggering the error.
> 
> The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
> `build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
> aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
> behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.

Very interesting. So by adding a partially faulty build_assert!() call,
these functions were actually wrong when they created! Maybe a Fixes:
tag is warranted.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

> 
> Add a paragraph instructing to annotate such functions with
> `#[inline(always)]` in `build_assert`'s documentation, and split its
> example to illustrate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
>   rust/kernel/build_assert.rs | 7 ++++++-
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> index 6331b15d7c4d..f8124dbc663f 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> @@ -61,8 +61,13 @@ macro_rules! build_error {
>   ///     build_assert!(N > 1); // Build-time check
>   ///     assert!(N > 1); // Run-time check
>   /// }
> +/// ```
>   ///
> -/// #[inline]
> +/// When a condition depends on a function argument, the function must be annotated with
> +/// `#[inline(always)]`. Without this attribute, the compiler may choose to not inline the
> +/// function, preventing it from optimizing out the error path.
> +/// ```
> +/// #[inline(always)]
>   /// fn bar(n: usize) {
>   ///     // `static_assert!(n > 1);` is not allowed
>   ///     build_assert!(n > 1); // Build-time check
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 10:44 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Very interesting. So by adding a partially faulty build_assert!() call,
> these functions were actually wrong when they created! Maybe a Fixes:
> tag is warranted.

To clarify: it is the lack of optimization in certain configs (-Os,
CLIPPY=1...) as well as possibly certain code patterns that may
trigger it, not that the calls were faulty (note that `always` doesn't
guarantee it either anyway).

Daniel suggested Fixes in #0 -- if any of these trigger a build error
(like the `Bounded` one), then yeah. Cc: stable@ too.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 11/30/25 1:56 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 10:44 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting. So by adding a partially faulty build_assert!() call,
>> these functions were actually wrong when they created! Maybe a Fixes:
>> tag is warranted.
> 
> To clarify: it is the lack of optimization in certain configs (-Os,
> CLIPPY=1...) as well as possibly certain code patterns that may
> trigger it, not that the calls were faulty (note that `always` doesn't

It seems pretty clear that if one writes a *build* assertion about
a function argument, then that is just conceptually wrong unless it
is inlined. Because it can only really be a run-time assertion.

This is what Alex pointed out, and looking at the code I agree.

Thoughts?


> guarantee it either anyway).

Yes, understood. So maybe "Fixes" is too strong. It's more like
"Mitigates:".  :)


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

> 
> Daniel suggested Fixes in #0 -- if any of these trigger a build error
> (like the `Bounded` one), then yeah. Cc: stable@ too.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:01 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> It seems pretty clear that if one writes a *build* assertion about
> a function argument, then that is just conceptually wrong unless it
> is inlined. Because it can only really be a run-time assertion.
>
> This is what Alex pointed out, and looking at the code I agree.

No, the function here was already inline.

What Alexandre wrote, which is correct, is that the fix is about
asking for *more* inlining.

The build assertion itself is fine. What is "wrong" is that the
inlining wasn't enough.

Nevertheless, it is (or at least some of these are) definitely a "fix"
in the sense that it did fix cases we hit where the inlining wasn't
enough, like Clippy ones which may change codegen (which in turn is
why we say it cannot be used in "production" kernel builds:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8037 -- back then it
disabled MIR optimizations).

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 11/30/25 2:42 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:01 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems pretty clear that if one writes a *build* assertion about
>> a function argument, then that is just conceptually wrong unless it
>> is inlined. Because it can only really be a run-time assertion.
>>
>> This is what Alex pointed out, and looking at the code I agree.
> 
> No, the function here was already inline.

More precisely, it was already *hinted* to be inline.

> 
> What Alexandre wrote, which is correct, is that the fix is about
> asking for *more* inlining.
> 
> The build assertion itself is fine. What is "wrong" is that the
> inlining wasn't enough.

I'm having a difficult time with that statement, because if you
write:

fn bar(n: usize) {
    build_assert!(n > 1);
    ...
}

Then that is conceptually wrong, because it must be a runtime check.

The only way it can be a compile-time check is if you have some
way to *guarantee* that the function is inlined into code that has
a const n.

Absent such guarantees (and we have "nearly none", right?), we have
been writing "partly wrong" code in all such cases.

Why? Are the guarantees stronger than they look? Or other reasoning?

> 
> Nevertheless, it is (or at least some of these are) definitely a "fix"
> in the sense that it did fix cases we hit where the inlining wasn't
> enough, like Clippy ones which may change codegen (which in turn is
> why we say it cannot be used in "production" kernel builds:
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8037 -- back then it
> disabled MIR optimizations).
> 

Sorry for the fussy detailed questioning here. I'm trying to bottom
out here because CLIPPY=1 is a very solid requirement before posting
patches. 


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 1:52 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> More precisely, it was already *hinted* to be inline.

By inline I mean it is marked `#[inline]`, which may or may not get
inlined, but it also has other implications, e.g. codegen can get
delayed even if there are no callers and is concrete.

> Then that is conceptually wrong, because it must be a runtime check.

No, it is not true it must be a runtime check -- it depends: you can
use such a function in some cases just fine.

That is the point of `build_assert!`, after all.

> Sorry for the fussy detailed questioning here. I'm trying to bottom
> out here because CLIPPY=1 is a very solid requirement before posting
> patches.

No worries, but I don't follow what you mean here. `CLIPPY=1` is still
required to be clean etc.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 11/30/25 7:44 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 1:52 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> More precisely, it was already *hinted* to be inline.
> 
> By inline I mean it is marked `#[inline]`, which may or may not get
> inlined, but it also has other implications, e.g. codegen can get
> delayed even if there are no callers and is concrete.
> 
>> Then that is conceptually wrong, because it must be a runtime check.
> 
> No, it is not true it must be a runtime check -- it depends: you can
> use such a function in some cases just fine.
> 
> That is the point of `build_assert!`, after all.

This seems strange: something called build_assert!() should not be
put in places where it might not be possible to verify at build-time.
It's built right into the name.

> 
>> Sorry for the fussy detailed questioning here. I'm trying to bottom
>> out here because CLIPPY=1 is a very solid requirement before posting
>> patches.
> 
> No worries, but I don't follow what you mean here. `CLIPPY=1` is still
> required to be clean etc.
> 

CLIPPY=1 is effectively part of the developers' tool chain. It is also
one of the ways to break the build_assert!() call sites.

So now we have to go around and annotate the functions that *contain*
uses of build_assert!(). Otherwise we end up with an unreliable tool
chain for developers. This is not where we should want to be, in the
long run.

Is there proc macro magic we can come up with? Or rustc or clippy
changes? So that this is becomes a better foundation upon which to
build?

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 5:36 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> This seems strange: something called build_assert!() should not be
> put in places where it might not be possible to verify at build-time.
> It's built right into the name.

The build prefix means the assert is done at build time, not that it
can always be verified. Even other asserts could also "fail" in a
certain sense (diverging, conditional compilation...).

Detecting "unreasonable" uses that are likely to fail would be nice, of course.

> So now we have to go around and annotate the functions that *contain*
> uses of build_assert!().

Only for those that need it.

> Otherwise we end up with an unreliable tool
> chain for developers. This is not where we should want to be, in the
> long run.

It is not a black or white issue. Conditional compilation also breaks
if someone misuses it, and that alone doesn't mean we stop using it.
It is a tradeoff at the end of the day.

Nevertheless, also note that the C side also relies on optimizations.

> Is there proc macro magic we can come up with? Or rustc or clippy
> changes? So that this is becomes a better foundation upon which to
> build?

Converting more code to macros has their own set of tradeoffs, but it
depends on what you mean. Do you have something in mind?

And yes, I have had it in our usual lists for a long time and we
mentioned it to upstream Rust and so on. We are well aware that
`build_assert!` isn't ideal, and in many cases it is best to avoid it
when there is a better approach.

Now, if a company has the means to improve the situation, e.g. by
sponsoring someone upstream to work on features like this, then by all
means, please go ahead! That would be very welcome, and we have some
contacts that could be interested in working on things like that, so
please feel free to ping.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 12/1/25 8:43 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 5:36 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
...
>> Is there proc macro magic we can come up with? Or rustc or clippy
>> changes? So that this is becomes a better foundation upon which to
>> build?
> 
> Converting more code to macros has their own set of tradeoffs, but it
> depends on what you mean. Do you have something in mind?

Mainly just: is there a way to automatically "derive" (generate) an
always-inline directive for any function that attempts to call
build_assert!() on any of its arguments? And in fact, *force* the
always-inline, if it is not forced hard enough today.

Something along those lines.

> 
> And yes, I have had it in our usual lists for a long time and we
> mentioned it to upstream Rust and so on. We are well aware that
> `build_assert!` isn't ideal, and in many cases it is best to avoid it
> when there is a better approach.
> 
> Now, if a company has the means to improve the situation, e.g. by
> sponsoring someone upstream to work on features like this, then by all
> means, please go ahead! That would be very welcome, and we have some
> contacts that could be interested in working on things like that, so
> please feel free to ping.
> 

I will bring this up (along with the KSYM_NAME_LEN hashed symbol project)
to our internal Rust groups. Both of these seem like nice, self-contained
projects that someone could really get into.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:31 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Mainly just: is there a way to automatically "derive" (generate) an
> always-inline directive for any function that attempts to call
> build_assert!() on any of its arguments? And in fact, *force* the
> always-inline, if it is not forced hard enough today.
>
> Something along those lines.

"Wide-scoped" macros can do passes like that, i.e. like some projects
do to add extra syntax everywhere. Not sure we want to get into that
world, though.

Instead, if we are just talking about checking, then I think we could
have an attribute macro to mark such functions, and then
`build_assert!` could fail "by default" unless inside one of those,
and it would get rewritten into the proper form by the macro, so any
call without it would fail. It is always nice to mark special
functions anyway, just like our `export` one.

Otherwise, for more than just checking, I guess a custom tool like
Klint could also do it for us (I am sure Gary has ideas here).

> I will bring this up (along with the KSYM_NAME_LEN hashed symbol project)
> to our internal Rust groups. Both of these seem like nice, self-contained
> projects that someone could really get into.

That is great -- thanks!

On related news, Antoni (Cc'd) told me yesterday that he noticed
`inline(always)` was needed when using the GCC backend too, so this
series will help him too.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 12/1/25 3:06 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:31 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mainly just: is there a way to automatically "derive" (generate) an
>> always-inline directive for any function that attempts to call
>> build_assert!() on any of its arguments? And in fact, *force* the
>> always-inline, if it is not forced hard enough today.
>>
>> Something along those lines.
> 
> "Wide-scoped" macros can do passes like that, i.e. like some projects
> do to add extra syntax everywhere. Not sure we want to get into that
> world, though.
> 
> Instead, if we are just talking about checking, then I think we could
> have an attribute macro to mark such functions, and then
> `build_assert!` could fail "by default" unless inside one of those,
> and it would get rewritten into the proper form by the macro, so any
> call without it would fail. It is always nice to mark special
> functions anyway, just like our `export` one.
> 
> Otherwise, for more than just checking, I guess a custom tool like
> Klint could also do it for us (I am sure Gary has ideas here).
> 
>> I will bring this up (along with the KSYM_NAME_LEN hashed symbol project)
>> to our internal Rust groups. Both of these seem like nice, self-contained
>> projects that someone could really get into.
> 
> That is great -- thanks!

For the build_assert!() project, I didn't even get that far, because it
turns out that Joel Fernandes  (+Cc) is already working hard on this.

> 
> On related news, Antoni (Cc'd) told me yesterday that he noticed
> `inline(always)` was needed when using the GCC backend too, so this
> series will help him too.
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Edwin Peer]

On 11/27/25 18:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:

> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
> lest build fails with the dreaded error:
>
>     ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!
>
> It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
> (sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
> with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
> observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].
>
> The cause appears to be that the failing function is eventually using
> `build_assert` with its argument, but is only annotated with
> `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom to not inline the function,
> which it notably did when Clippy was active, triggering the error.
>
> The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
> `build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
> aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
> behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.
>
> Add a paragraph instructing to annotate such functions with
> `#[inline(always)]` in `build_assert`'s documentation, and split its
> example to illustrate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/build_assert.rs | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> index 6331b15d7c4d..f8124dbc663f 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
> @@ -61,8 +61,13 @@ macro_rules! build_error {
>  ///     build_assert!(N > 1); // Build-time check
>  ///     assert!(N > 1); // Run-time check
>  /// }
> +/// ```
>  ///
> -/// #[inline]
> +/// When a condition depends on a function argument, the function must be annotated with
> +/// `#[inline(always)]`. Without this attribute, the compiler may choose to not inline the
> +/// function, preventing it from optimizing out the error path.
> +/// ```
> +/// #[inline(always)]

The compiler may still choose to not inline the function, even under
`#[inline(always)]`:

"#[inline(always)] suggests that inline expansion should always be
performed." [1] 

"Note: In every form the attribute is a hint. The compiler may ignore
it." [also 1]

1: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/attributes/codegen.html

Regards,
Edwin Peer

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Tue Dec 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM JST, Edwin Peer wrote:
> On 11/27/25 18:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
>> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
>> lest build fails with the dreaded error:
>>
>>     ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!
>>
>> It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
>> (sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
>> with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
>> observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].
>>
>> The cause appears to be that the failing function is eventually using
>> `build_assert` with its argument, but is only annotated with
>> `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom to not inline the function,
>> which it notably did when Clippy was active, triggering the error.
>>
>> The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
>> `build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
>> aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
>> behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.
>>
>> Add a paragraph instructing to annotate such functions with
>> `#[inline(always)]` in `build_assert`'s documentation, and split its
>> example to illustrate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>  rust/kernel/build_assert.rs | 7 ++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
>> index 6331b15d7c4d..f8124dbc663f 100644
>> --- a/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
>> +++ b/rust/kernel/build_assert.rs
>> @@ -61,8 +61,13 @@ macro_rules! build_error {
>>  ///     build_assert!(N > 1); // Build-time check
>>  ///     assert!(N > 1); // Run-time check
>>  /// }
>> +/// ```
>>  ///
>> -/// #[inline]
>> +/// When a condition depends on a function argument, the function must be annotated with
>> +/// `#[inline(always)]`. Without this attribute, the compiler may choose to not inline the
>> +/// function, preventing it from optimizing out the error path.
>> +/// ```
>> +/// #[inline(always)]
>
> The compiler may still choose to not inline the function, even under
> `#[inline(always)]`:
>
> "#[inline(always)] suggests that inline expansion should always be
> performed." [1] 
>
> "Note: In every form the attribute is a hint. The compiler may ignore
> it." [also 1]

This is true, but AFAICT this is the best we can do as of today (and in
practice it thankfully never failed so far). If there is a more reliable
way to always inline functions we should definitely use that though.

[PATCH v2 2/7] rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
triggering a build error.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/io.rs          | 9 ++++++---
 rust/kernel/io/resource.rs | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/io.rs b/rust/kernel/io.rs
index ee182b0b5452..ccdd394099cb 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/io.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/io.rs
@@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ macro_rules! define_read {
         /// Bound checks are performed on compile time, hence if the offset is not known at compile
         /// time, the build will fail.
         $(#[$attr])*
-        #[inline]
+        // Always inline to optimize out error path of `io_addr_assert`.
+        #[inline(always)]
         pub fn $name(&self, offset: usize) -> $type_name {
             let addr = self.io_addr_assert::<$type_name>(offset);
 
@@ -149,7 +150,8 @@ macro_rules! define_write {
         /// Bound checks are performed on compile time, hence if the offset is not known at compile
         /// time, the build will fail.
         $(#[$attr])*
-        #[inline]
+        // Always inline to optimize out error path of `io_addr_assert`.
+        #[inline(always)]
         pub fn $name(&self, value: $type_name, offset: usize) {
             let addr = self.io_addr_assert::<$type_name>(offset);
 
@@ -217,7 +219,8 @@ fn io_addr<U>(&self, offset: usize) -> Result<usize> {
         self.addr().checked_add(offset).ok_or(EINVAL)
     }
 
-    #[inline]
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+    #[inline(always)]
     fn io_addr_assert<U>(&self, offset: usize) -> usize {
         build_assert!(Self::offset_valid::<U>(offset, SIZE));
 
diff --git a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
index bea3ee0ed87b..d9851923562c 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
@@ -223,6 +223,8 @@ impl Flags {
     /// Resource represents a memory region that must be ioremaped using `ioremap_np`.
     pub const IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED: Flags = Flags::new(bindings::IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED);
 
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+    #[inline(always)]
     const fn new(value: u32) -> Self {
         crate::build_assert!(value as u64 <= c_ulong::MAX as u64);
         Flags(value as c_ulong)

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Edwin Peer]

On 11/27/25 18:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
> Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
> otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
> triggering a build error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/io.rs          | 9 ++++++---
>  rust/kernel/io/resource.rs | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/io.rs b/rust/kernel/io.rs
> index ee182b0b5452..ccdd394099cb 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/io.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/io.rs
> @@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ macro_rules! define_read {
>          /// Bound checks are performed on compile time, hence if the offset is not known at compile
>          /// time, the build will fail.
>          $(#[$attr])*
> -        #[inline]
> +        // Always inline to optimize out error path of `io_addr_assert`.
> +        #[inline(always)]
>          pub fn $name(&self, offset: usize) -> $type_name {
>              let addr = self.io_addr_assert::<$type_name>(offset);
>  
> @@ -149,7 +150,8 @@ macro_rules! define_write {
>          /// Bound checks are performed on compile time, hence if the offset is not known at compile
>          /// time, the build will fail.
>          $(#[$attr])*
> -        #[inline]
> +        // Always inline to optimize out error path of `io_addr_assert`.
> +        #[inline(always)]
>          pub fn $name(&self, value: $type_name, offset: usize) {
>              let addr = self.io_addr_assert::<$type_name>(offset);
>  
> @@ -217,7 +219,8 @@ fn io_addr<U>(&self, offset: usize) -> Result<usize> {
>          self.addr().checked_add(offset).ok_or(EINVAL)
>      }
>  
> -    #[inline]
> +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> +    #[inline(always)]
>      fn io_addr_assert<U>(&self, offset: usize) -> usize {
>          build_assert!(Self::offset_valid::<U>(offset, SIZE));
>  
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> index bea3ee0ed87b..d9851923562c 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> @@ -223,6 +223,8 @@ impl Flags {
>      /// Resource represents a memory region that must be ioremaped using `ioremap_np`.
>      pub const IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED: Flags = Flags::new(bindings::IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED);
>  
> +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> +    #[inline(always)]
>      const fn new(value: u32) -> Self {

Does the build_assert problem actually manifest for const functions?

Regards,
Edwin Peer


>          crate::build_assert!(value as u64 <= c_ulong::MAX as u64);
>          Flags(value as c_ulong)
>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alice Ryhl]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 9:07 PM Edwin Peer <epeer@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/25 18:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> > index bea3ee0ed87b..d9851923562c 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/io/resource.rs
> > @@ -223,6 +223,8 @@ impl Flags {
> >      /// Resource represents a memory region that must be ioremaped using `ioremap_np`.
> >      pub const IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED: Flags = Flags::new(bindings::IORESOURCE_MEM_NONPOSTED);
> >
> > +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> > +    #[inline(always)]
> >      const fn new(value: u32) -> Self {
>
> Does the build_assert problem actually manifest for const functions?

Yes, the const marker only allows you to call it from const context.
It does not change behavior when it is called from non-const context.

Alice

[PATCH v2 3/7] rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
triggering a build error.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
index 1a555fcb120a..df5d9f6f43f3 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
@@ -1015,6 +1015,8 @@ impl<T: Driver> Registration<T> {
         ..pin_init::zeroed()
     };
 
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+    #[inline(always)]
     const fn copy_name(name: &'static CStr) -> [c_char; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN] {
         let src = name.to_bytes_with_nul();
         let mut dst = [0; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-11-25, 11:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
> Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
> otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
> triggering a build error.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> index 1a555fcb120a..df5d9f6f43f3 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> @@ -1015,6 +1015,8 @@ impl<T: Driver> Registration<T> {
>          ..pin_init::zeroed()
>      };
>  
> +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> +    #[inline(always)]
>      const fn copy_name(name: &'static CStr) -> [c_char; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN] {
>          let src = name.to_bytes_with_nul();
>          let mut dst = [0; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Lemme know if you want me to pick this instead.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alice Ryhl]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 11:42:55AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-11-25, 11:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
> > Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
> > otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
> > triggering a build error.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > index 1a555fcb120a..df5d9f6f43f3 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > @@ -1015,6 +1015,8 @@ impl<T: Driver> Registration<T> {
> >          ..pin_init::zeroed()
> >      };
> >  
> > +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> > +    #[inline(always)]
> >      const fn copy_name(name: &'static CStr) -> [c_char; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN] {
> >          let src = name.to_bytes_with_nul();
> >          let mut dst = [0; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
> 
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Lemme know if you want me to pick this instead.

There's no reason these can't be picked up independently, so it would be
fine if you pick up this one.

Alice

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-11-25, 09:32, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 11:42:55AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 28-11-25, 11:11, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > > `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
> > > Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
> > > otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
> > > triggering a build error.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > > index 1a555fcb120a..df5d9f6f43f3 100644
> > > --- a/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > > +++ b/rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs
> > > @@ -1015,6 +1015,8 @@ impl<T: Driver> Registration<T> {
> > >          ..pin_init::zeroed()
> > >      };
> > >  
> > > +    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
> > > +    #[inline(always)]
> > >      const fn copy_name(name: &'static CStr) -> [c_char; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN] {
> > >          let src = name.to_bytes_with_nul();
> > >          let mut dst = [0; CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > 
> > Lemme know if you want me to pick this instead.
> 
> There's no reason these can't be picked up independently, so it would be
> fine if you pick up this one.

Applied. Thanks.

-- 
viresh

[PATCH v2 4/7] rust: bits: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
triggering a build error.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/bits.rs | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/bits.rs b/rust/kernel/bits.rs
index 553d50265883..2daead125626 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/bits.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/bits.rs
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ pub fn [<checked_bit_ $ty>](n: u32) -> Option<$ty> {
             ///
             /// This version is the default and should be used if `n` is known at
             /// compile time.
-            #[inline]
+            // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+            #[inline(always)]
             pub const fn [<bit_ $ty>](n: u32) -> $ty {
                 build_assert!(n < <$ty>::BITS);
                 (1 as $ty) << n
@@ -75,7 +76,8 @@ pub fn [<genmask_checked_ $ty>](range: RangeInclusive<u32>) -> Option<$ty> {
             /// This version is the default and should be used if the range is known
             /// at compile time.
             $(#[$genmask_ex])*
-            #[inline]
+            // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+            #[inline(always)]
             pub const fn [<genmask_ $ty>](range: RangeInclusive<u32>) -> $ty {
                 let start = *range.start();
                 let end = *range.end();

-- 
2.52.0

[PATCH v2 5/7] rust: sync: refcount: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
triggering a build error.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs
index 19236a5bccde..6c7ae8b05a0b 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ impl Refcount {
     /// Construct a new [`Refcount`] from an initial value.
     ///
     /// The initial value should be non-saturated.
-    #[inline]
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+    #[inline(always)]
     pub fn new(value: i32) -> Self {
         build_assert!(value >= 0, "initial value saturated");
         // SAFETY: There are no safety requirements for this FFI call.

-- 
2.52.0

[PATCH v2 6/7] rust: irq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

`build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path.
Functions using it with its arguments must thus always be inlined,
otherwise the error path of `build_assert` might not be optimized out,
triggering a build error.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs b/rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs
index adfde96ec47c..d26e25af06ee 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs
@@ -96,6 +96,8 @@ pub(crate) fn into_inner(self) -> c_ulong {
         self.0
     }
 
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
+    #[inline(always)]
     const fn new(value: u32) -> Self {
         build_assert!(value as u64 <= c_ulong::MAX as u64);
         Self(value as c_ulong)

-- 
2.52.0

[PATCH v2 7/7] rust: num: bounded: add missing comment for always inlined function

[Alexandre Courbot]

This code is always inlined to avoid a build error if the error path of
`build_assert` cannot be optimized out. Add a comment justifying the
`#[inline(always)]` property to avoid it being taken away by mistake.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
---
 rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs b/rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs
index f870080af8ac..6dfcf9c1a55a 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ pub fn try_new(value: T) -> Option<Self> {
     /// assert_eq!(Bounded::<u8, 1>::from_expr(1).get(), 1);
     /// assert_eq!(Bounded::<u16, 8>::from_expr(0xff).get(), 0xff);
     /// ```
+    // Always inline to optimize out error path of `build_assert`.
     #[inline(always)]
     pub fn from_expr(expr: T) -> Self {
         crate::build_assert!(

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Daniel Almeida]

> On 27 Nov 2025, at 23:11, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
> lest build fails with the dreaded error:
> 
>    ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!
> 
> It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
> (sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
> with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
> observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].
> 
> The cause, as pointed out by Gary Guo [3], appears to be that the
> failing function is eventually using `build_assert` with its argument,
> but is only annotated with `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom
> to not inline the function, which it notably did when Clippy was active,
> triggering the error.
> 
> The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
> `build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
> aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
> behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.
> 
> This series fixes all possible points of failure in the kernel crate,
> and adds documentation to `build_assert` explaining how to properly
> inline functions for which this behavior may arise.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DEEUYUOAEZU3.1J1HM2YQ10EX1@nvidia.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/A1A280D4-836E-4D75-863E-30B1C276C80C@collabora.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251121143008.2f5acc33.gary@garyguo.net/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Turn into a series and address other similar cases in the kernel crate.
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20251127-io-build-assert-v1-1-04237f2e5850@nvidia.com
> 
> ---
> Alexandre Courbot (7):
>      rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments
>      rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: bits: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: sync: refcount: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: irq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: num: bounded: add missing comment for always inlined function
> 
> rust/kernel/bits.rs          | 6 ++++--
> rust/kernel/build_assert.rs  | 7 ++++++-
> rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs       | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/io.rs            | 9 ++++++---
> rust/kernel/io/resource.rs   | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs     | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs   | 1 +
> rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs | 3 ++-
> 8 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 54e3eae855629702c566bd2e130d9f40e7f35bde
> change-id: 20251127-io-build-assert-3579a5bfb81c
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> 

Thanks for fixing this. I was _very_ confused when it happened to me.

Reviewed-by: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Daniel Almeida]

> On 27 Nov 2025, at 23:11, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> `build_assert` relies on the compiler to optimize out its error path,
> lest build fails with the dreaded error:
> 
>    ERROR: modpost: "rust_build_error" [path/to/module.ko] undefined!
> 
> It has been observed that very trivial code performing I/O accesses
> (sometimes even using an immediate value) would seemingly randomly fail
> with this error whenever `CLIPPY=1` was set. The same behavior was also
> observed until different, very similar conditions [1][2].
> 
> The cause, as pointed out by Gary Guo [3], appears to be that the
> failing function is eventually using `build_assert` with its argument,
> but is only annotated with `#[inline]`. This gives the compiler freedom
> to not inline the function, which it notably did when Clippy was active,
> triggering the error.
> 
> The fix is to annotate functions passing their argument to
> `build_assert` with `#[inline(always)]`, telling the compiler to be as
> aggressive as possible with their inlining. This is also the correct
> behavior as inlining is mandatory for correct behavior in these cases.
> 
> This series fixes all possible points of failure in the kernel crate,
> and adds documentation to `build_assert` explaining how to properly
> inline functions for which this behavior may arise.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DEEUYUOAEZU3.1J1HM2YQ10EX1@nvidia.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/A1A280D4-836E-4D75-863E-30B1C276C80C@collabora.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251121143008.2f5acc33.gary@garyguo.net/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Turn into a series and address other similar cases in the kernel crate.
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20251127-io-build-assert-v1-1-04237f2e5850@nvidia.com
> 
> ---
> Alexandre Courbot (7):
>      rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments
>      rust: io: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: cpufreq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: bits: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: sync: refcount: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: irq: always inline functions using build_assert with arguments
>      rust: num: bounded: add missing comment for always inlined function
> 
> rust/kernel/bits.rs          | 6 ++++--
> rust/kernel/build_assert.rs  | 7 ++++++-
> rust/kernel/cpufreq.rs       | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/io.rs            | 9 ++++++---
> rust/kernel/io/resource.rs   | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/irq/flags.rs     | 2 ++
> rust/kernel/num/bounded.rs   | 1 +
> rust/kernel/sync/refcount.rs | 3 ++-
> 8 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 54e3eae855629702c566bd2e130d9f40e7f35bde
> change-id: 20251127-io-build-assert-3579a5bfb81c
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
> 
> 

Ah, should this have a Fixes: tag?

— Daniel

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 5:09 PM Daniel Almeida
<daniel.almeida@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, should this have a Fixes: tag?

Yes for those that trigger an error, e.g. the `Bounded` one with -Os
in mainline soon. We probably want Cc: stable@ too -- it is not too
risky to add these anyway.

However, the tag should be different for each commit depending on
where each method was introduced. #1 and #7 are not really fixes, so
they don't need it.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Mon Dec 1, 2025 at 2:48 AM JST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 5:09 PM Daniel Almeida
> <daniel.almeida@collabora.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, should this have a Fixes: tag?
>
> Yes for those that trigger an error, e.g. the `Bounded` one with -Os
> in mainline soon. We probably want Cc: stable@ too -- it is not too
> risky to add these anyway.
>
> However, the tag should be different for each commit depending on
> where each method was introduced. #1 and #7 are not really fixes, so
> they don't need it.

Shall I respin with some `Fixes:` tags where appropriate then?

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] rust: build_assert: document and fix use with function arguments

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 4:19 AM Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Shall I respin with some `Fixes:` tags where appropriate then?

If you can, then that would be great, yeah. Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel