From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch (mail-4322.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CF451B3F1A for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.22 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723649303; cv=none; b=GPRIu1MVfGyWTTHVX94XUizVdtMWxY4wrsweOz57zX/O5jz4lWwe+BEDPK/7/U0q9Hxy7KYu/LnZOtnnt635oU5sQJLuBz3CN3ffc19qldn/0EGJVgcHos7P97DuQ3lIL5GRPrzsnS9gNOMdxMJXdcvFnkjF/fjs7N/J0vvGNQM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723649303; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MuR0TzKoD/82H6FNhNsVi/6dcgoRuB0EnRcZ5RZ2w38=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=shsy1ug0RkEh0qUjS0UZD0WIuJhDkG6yqyY10dkgAsKMG+eWBCivDMTH29gf9KyHJemEagiAtMHo6RCRSTrPLxJvGhjXtZGc7vh2Ha7iDkw2e+0vSUcT0DauuPxG1JJIX1RnmK3thHAXS1skmvIFfb+qlbHblQa0US5OdSHBvyk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b=eyPX261q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.70.43.22 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proton.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me header.i=@proton.me header.b="eyPX261q" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=protonmail; t=1723649293; x=1723908493; bh=MuR0TzKoD/82H6FNhNsVi/6dcgoRuB0EnRcZ5RZ2w38=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=eyPX261q1+gOa00RCdL3H899nPWsg3bAblFMAyKWWTMD84a+INhfR5feerWgyNj21 KyB6SZlHj2eGIrCmCmvnWmqBusIYbmmhjLi9mzcpAKaV13pMulyRgXgRa3oSj2p3SC 9alhP9UN/h2oZJOBAOPN+vsdxjNdEvbLIOxzRmViDEMbaUYK3mBiiGp4YgpmVljUlE t0HmusHD7/Wiifd/hhmMrCW70tsGBCMcTNjm1SRVV79BzZHrRGNgpgls5W6sy6GhQK 8NiixMLXgWB8hA810jwVM7WlxwerE/ida5NKEd3hHa9AljONB5Cqn01YN3j7Tw5dtx 3KnFtXGBtdYIA== Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:28:10 +0000 To: Danilo Krummrich , Miguel Ojeda From: Benno Lossin Cc: Alice Ryhl , ojeda@kernel.org, alex.gaynor@gmail.com, wedsonaf@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, gary@garyguo.net, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com, a.hindborg@samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.almeida@collabora.com, faith.ekstrand@collabora.com, boris.brezillon@collabora.com, lina@asahilina.net, mcanal@igalia.com, zhiw@nvidia.com, cjia@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, airlied@redhat.com, ajanulgu@redhat.com, lyude@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/26] rust: alloc: implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc` Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20240812182355.11641-1-dakr@kernel.org> <20240812182355.11641-5-dakr@kernel.org> Feedback-ID: 71780778:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 3b4c5c06824648ccad7be788c21fcae10398f170 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 14.08.24 17:19, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:03:21PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:00=E2=80=AFPM Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> >>> If we keep them, we'd consequently also need to add them for vrealloc()= and >>> kvrealloc(). But again, they don't do anything for us, and hence are mo= re >>> misleading than helpful IMO. >> >> In general, they could do something (e.g. `noreturn`), perhaps in the fu= ture. >=20 > Indeed, and I think once they're honored we should add them again. That sounds like it will be a lot of work, going through every function and checking if it has the given attribute. Especially when the attributes are enabled one by one. I think we should keep them (and of course introduce them on new functions). --- Cheers, Benno > It's just that I think as long as compiler attributes aren't honored, we = should > not have them in the first place to avoid confusion about whether they do= or do > not have any effect.