Re: [PATCH 0/2] rust: cpumask: Bindings for core cpumasks and cpumask iterators

[Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 03:56:54PM -0800, Mitchell Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:38:54PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 04:19:36PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 11/5/25 3:16 PM, Mitchell Levy wrote:
> > > > The kernel provides a number of very useful CPU masks from the C side,
> > > > including CPU masks for possible and online CPUs. In particular, these
> > > > are very useful when some operation must be done on each CPU (either
> > > > each possible CPU or each online CPU, etc). Therefore, it seems to make
> > > > sense to add both of these functionalities at once.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > These patches originated as part of my work on a Rust per-CPU API [1].
> > > > Boqun suggested to me that these may make sense to merge separately, and
> > > > it does seem like these might be useful beyond the per-CPU work.
> > > > 
> > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20251105-rust-percpu-v4-0-984b1470adcb@gmail.com/
> > > 
> > > Even though you are trying to get these two patches merged separately,
> > > I think it's best (for reviewers) if you post a patchset that shows
> > > these things being used. Otherwise it is potentially too unmoored from 
> > > reality, and hard to be sure that it's exactly right from a caller's
> > > point of view.
> > > 
> > > In this case, just posting that 9-patch series might work, and just
> > > say in the cover letter that patches 3 through 9 are not ready for
> > > merging.
> > > 
> > > Something like that.
> > > 
> > > I realize that Rust for Linux is being built from scratch right
> > > now, but including calling code in a patchset is a really valuable
> > > kernel convention that helps validate the code.
> > > 
> > > I say this for the benefit of others who may be reading. :)
> > 
> > Not a big deal. Those two patches are self-consistent enough to take
> > them separately. But I agree that examples are always welcome.
> > 
> > Mitchell, can you resend this small series after addressing my
> > comments to the big one, and also can you illustrate it with the
> > usage examples?
> > 
> > Maybe a small test doing:
> >         
> >         for cpu in CpuMask::possible_cpus().iter()
> >                 ncpus++;
> > 
> >         assert_eq!(ncpus == CpuMask::num_possible_cpus());
> 
> Sure, will do. My current plan is to do rustdoc tests that will double
> as examples in the generated documentation. However, if you'd prefer
> something in `samples/rust` instead (or in addition), please let me
> know.

I like traditional tests. If you do both - even better.