Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220317181032.15436-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20220317181032.15436-7-ojeda@kernel.org>
 <YkWhs1GffuUmZ4SC@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YkWhs1GffuUmZ4SC@kroah.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:19:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72mxXY_4wXZPO5VCX76G168X0gynO=n=1xP2shVWBm+yeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/20] rust: add `alloc` crate
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com>,
        Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, Matthew Bakhtiari <dev@mtbk.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Greg,

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 2:42 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is a huge patch.  Why not break it into 2, one that adds what is
> upstream, and then the second adds the "stuff on top" that you need for
> the kernel.  Otherwise it's hard to know what is, and is not, upstream
> for us to be able to review from a kernel point of view.

That is a good idea, will do.

There are some files from upstream that we do not need, so they are
already deleted here (e.g. collections), thus what I will do is send
the first patch without those already and then another patch with the
modifications/additions we did. If you prefer to see the deleted files
in an intermediate step, I can also do that.

> I think you are trying to do this with the "kernel" keyword, but if so,
> why are you picking a "since" of 1.0?  None of that is described in the
> changelog :(

Exactly, I used the "kernel" string to have the additions clearly
marked. The `stable`/`unstable` attributes are required in the
standard library -- here the "1.0" is just a placeholder.

I will expand a bit on this in the split patches approach that you
suggest above.

Thanks for taking a look!

Cheers,
Miguel