Re: [PATCH v5] rust: add global lock support

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:46:19PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:23 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:17:23PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +///
> > > +/// A global mutex used to protect all instances of a given struct.
> > > +///
> > > +/// ```
> > > +/// # mod ex {
> > > +/// # use kernel::prelude::*;
> > > +/// kernel::sync::global_lock! {
> > > +///     // SAFETY: Initialized in module initializer before first use.
> > > +///     unsafe(uninit) static MY_MUTEX: Mutex<(), Guard = MyGuard, LockedBy = LockedByMyMutex> = ();
> >
> > Thanks! This looks much better now ;-)
> >
> > But I still want to get rid of "LockedBy=", so I've tried and seems it
> > works, please see the below diff on top of your patch, I think it's
> > better because:
> >
> > * Users don't to pick up the names for the locked_by type ;-)
> > * It moves a significant amount of code out of macros.
> > * By having:
> >
> >     struct MyStruct {
> >         my_counter: GlobalLockedBy<MyGuard, u32>,
> >     }
> >
> >   , it's much clear for users to see which guard is used to protected
> >   `my_counter`.
> >
> > I prefer this way. Any concern about doing this?
> 
> I think I came up with an even better way of doing it. The macro can

Cool!

> generate a dummy token type for the global lock, and then we can have
> three types: GlobalLock<T>, GlobalGuard<T>, GlobalLockedBy<T> that are
> all generic over the token type. The token type is an empty enum with

Just to make sure I understand it, so let's say the token type's name is
`TK`, you mean we have GlobalLock<T, TK>, GlobalGuard<T, TK> and
GlobalLockedBy<S, TK>? Where T is the type protected by the static mutex
and S is the type protected by the locked_by type?

> no contents, but implements an unsafe trait saying that there's only
> one static using it.
> 
> This way we also do not need the helper module, as we no longer need
> to generate a struct with private fields.
> 

Sounds good to me. Do you plan to let the user name the token type? It's
fine to me, or do you want to name the token based on the static lock
name?

Regards,
Boqun

> Alice