Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] rust: property: Introduce PropertyGuard

John Hubbard
2025-04-28T20:25:09Z

On 4/28/25 1:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 03:12:18PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 4/26/25 2:50 PM, Remo Senekowitsch wrote:
>>> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 5:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
>>>>> On 26.04.25 16:19, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 01:08:39PM +0200, Remo Senekowitsch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 12:15 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> ...
>> The idea is that the lower level you are in the software stack, the
>> more rare printing should be.
>
> If that's a kernel style/requirement, I've never heard that. About the
> only coding style in this area I'm aware of don't print messages on
> kmalloc failure because the core does. It's the same concept here.
>
> When practically every caller is printing a message, it should go in the

If *every* caller, without exception, today and tomorrow, including
callers that expect failure--if all of those require printing a message,
then yes, it's time to print from the lower level routine.

Short of that, you end up with potentially excessive, and definitely
unrequested and/or undesirable printing.

> called function. It's not really different than anything else we do. If
> we have 2 functions commonly called in sequence, we combine them into a
> single helper function.
>

Right. And the rules are similar: the lower level has to be accurately
factored out. Not approximately.

thanks,
--
John Hubbard