Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] rust: DebugFS Bindings

["Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>]

On Wed Jul 9, 2025 at 11:53 PM CEST, Matthew Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 2:47 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed Jul 9, 2025 at 9:09 PM CEST, Matthew Maurer wrote:
>> > This series provides safe DebugFS bindings for Rust, with a sample
>> > module using them.
>> >
>> > Example interaction with the sample driver:
>>
>> I understand what you're trying to do here, i.e. showcase that values exported
>> via debugfs can be altered.
>>
>> The problem is that the current abstractions only implement read(), but not
>> write().
>
> I was trying to keep the initial bindings simple. Adding `write` is
> definitely something we could do, but I thought maybe that could be in
> a subsequent patch.

Absolutely, yes! I didn't mean to ask to add it now. :)

>> If you really want to showcase changing values, you can, for instance, create a
>> workqueue inside the sample driver and modify the counter periodically.
>
> This is supposed to be sample code, so ideally it should be as narrow
> as is reasonable in what subsystems it touches, no? If people would
> really prefer the sample schedule a ticking counter I can do that, but
> it already felt weird to be registering a platform driver in a debugfs
> sample.

I'm not asking to do that. If the values don't change for now, because
there's no write() yet, that's perfectly fine with me. :)

>>
>> We really should not teach people to modify values by read() instead of write().
>> Also, without this workaround there shouldn't be a reason to export the exact
>> same value twice, i.e. no need for File<File<AtomicUsize>>.
>>
>> - Danilo
>
> How do you feel about the `Wrapper` struct, intended to simulate the
> driver doing its actual job and show how that would look? Is that
> similarly verboten, even though there's a comment on it saying this
> isn't how one should do things?

Yeah, let's not do that -- don't give people ideas. :)