Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Rust: Fix typedefs for resource_size_t and phys_addr_t

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:49 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This changes ResourceSize to use the resource_size_t typedef (currently
> > ResourceSize is defined as phys_addr_t), and moves ResourceSize to
> > kernel::io and defines PhysAddr next to it. Any usage of ResourceSize or
> > bindings::phys_addr_t that references a physical address is updated to
> > use the new PhysAddr typedef.
> 
> Should we have these as actual types instead of aliases? i.e. same
> discussion as for `Offset`.
> 
> If there is a change of these getting mixed up, then I think we should
> just pay that price (not necessarily now, of course).

Maybe later. Right now I think it's more trouble than it's worth.

> > I included some cc stable annotations because I think it is useful to
> > backport this to v6.18. This is to make backporting drivers to the 6.18
> > LTS easier as we will not have to worry about changing imports when
> > backporting.
> 
> For context, will those drivers be backported upstream too?

I could imagine cases where a normal fix gets backported upstream and
benefits from this, but I mainly thought it was useful for backports
that happen downstream.

> i.e. we have sometimes backported bits to simplify further backporting
> elsewhere, which is fine and up to the stable team of course, but I am
> not sure if using Option 1 (i.e. the Cc tag) may be a bit confusing in
> the log, i.e. Option 2 or 3 offer a better chance to give a reason.

Using a different option makes sense to me.

Alice