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: <20230118160220.776302-1-varmavinaym@gmail.com> <MzQKRFS7tVFtse-EaI1QkIlyz1NMk56vSPdOmY0M3sgG4RHsFUMubaEffsPxSDyFG9dKfhJcBxN4pYYf3R95IuAVd1Ne0P2pMqXHC0dOTLw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MzQKRFS7tVFtse-EaI1QkIlyz1NMk56vSPdOmY0M3sgG4RHsFUMubaEffsPxSDyFG9dKfhJcBxN4pYYf3R95IuAVd1Ne0P2pMqXHC0dOTLw=@protonmail.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:35:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72k4cOEOykgUhgqaXPC7xhX2EoC8c4sr1oFEhKMfEdi=wA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: `make rust-analyzer` for out-of-tree modules
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>
Cc:     Vinay Varma <varmavinaym@gmail.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 2:17 PM Bj=C3=B6rn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> I tested this with https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/rust-out-of-tree-mod=
ule using "make -C ../rust-for-linux M=3D$(pwd) rust-analyzer". It produces=
 a rust-project.json file, however it misses the actual rust_out_of_tree cr=
ate. This is due to the fact that generate_rust_analyzer.py only checks Mak=
efile to find the crate roots, but rust-out-of-tree-module defines it in Kb=
uild instead.

Thanks for testing it! Indeed, we should support out-of-tree modules
using the `Kbuild` + `Makefile` approach.

Having said that, I wonder if we should even attempt to perform the
search for out-of-tree modules. The search loop is a simple hack which
works fine for in-tree code because we know the structure of the code
around us, but we cannot for out-of-tree modules. For instance, they
may be using a different build system, or not mentioning the object
file, etc.

Perhaps we should simply ask them to give us the roots directly as a
list of arguments to the script or similar.

Cheers,
Miguel