Re: [PATCH v6] rust: add global lock support

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

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:48:21PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 6:49 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> >
> > In addition, I've also queued it in my lockdep-for-tip branch:
> >
> >         https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/boqun/linux.git/log/?h=lockdep-for-tip
> >
> > as I want to help route Rust lock-related patches into tip, so this is
> > a practice round for me ;-)
> >
> > Miguel, feel free to take it via rust-next with my Reviewed-by, I will
> > drop it from my branch once if I see it shows up in v6.13-rc1.
> 
> No, no, it is great if you can take them :)
> 

Thanks!

> By "if I see it shows up in v6.13-rc1", do you mean your branch is not
> meant for v6.13?
> 

Right, so I'm acting as a sub-subsystem maintainer, and I submit pull
requests to the tip tree, and then tip will send pull requests to
Linus. So usually (yeah, I'm calling sometimes I've done only twice as
"usually"), I submit my PR at rc2 to rc4, and tip will carry that into
the next merge window. For example, since we are at v6.12-rc5, my next
PR will be at v6.13-rc{2, 3 or 4}. So if this patch is going via me, it
has to be in v6.14.

I think this patch has no problem to go into v6.13, so again, feel free
to do it ;-)

> Couple of things I noticed that I would normally double-check/fix in
> place: the "// SAFETY: called exactly once" comment could be

Got it. This particular one needs to be "// SAFETY: Called exactly
once", right?

Note that since lockdep-for-tip is not watched by linux-next, I have
some flexibilities between queuing a patch and preparing it for the PR
(I will need to rebase anyway). This could give contributers an early
notice and we both would have less things to watch (contributers can
just wait for the patches to show up eventually in Linus' tree instead
of checking the list for a reply, and I only need to focus on my branch
for improvement) for normal cases.

> formatted, and I think the "Link:" tag should be before your SoB
> (well, at least b4 does that, which makes sense since you added it,
> but I have seen commits done differently too).
> 

For this I'm following the precedents in tip tree: always put the patch
links at the last line. See the "Commit notifications" in
Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst. (And yeah, I have to manually
modify this after b4 applies the patches if you have to ask ;-))

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel