MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230224-rust-error-v1-0-f8f9a9a87303@asahilina.net>
 <20230224-rust-error-v1-5-f8f9a9a87303@asahilina.net> <Y/lOlcSpc+d9ytq/@boqun-archlinux>
 <20230225222340.34d749ee.gary@garyguo.net> <Y/rCU1S+GDgIojNf@boqun-archlinux>
 <20230226133606.583cd1d8.gary@garyguo.net> <Y/uiAfZnfbbMrQuD@boqun-archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <Y/uiAfZnfbbMrQuD@boqun-archlinux>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Feb 2023 21:59:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72kTiHF76T0AycM43qj4rUgQpHzBqXujdvk+H2qoDz22AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] rust: error: Add from_kernel_result!() macro
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, Asahi Lina <lina@asahilina.net>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
        Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, asahi@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFPM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> My preference to function instead of macro here is because I want to
> avoid the extra level of abstraction and make things explict, so that
> users and reviewers can understand the API behavior solely based on
> Rust's types, functions and closures: they are simpler than macros, at
> least to me ;-)

There is one extra problem with the macro: `rustfmt` does not format
the contents if called with braces (as we currently do).

So when I was cleaning some things up for v8, one of the things I did
was run manually `rustfmt` on the blocks by removing the macro
invocation, in commit 77a1a8c952e1 ("rust: kernel: apply `rustfmt` to
`from_kernel_result!` blocks").

Having said that, it does format it when called with parenthesis
wrapping the block, so we could do that if we end up with the macro.

> First, I think the macro version here is just a poor-man's try block, in
> other words, I'd expect explicit use of try blocks intead of
> `from_kernel_result` when the feature is ready. If that's the case, we
> need to change the use sites anyway.

Yeah, if we eventually get a better language feature that fits well,
then we should use it.

> Do both implementation share the same behavior?

Yeah, a `return` will return to the outer caller in the case of a
`try` block, while it returns to the closure (macro) in the other
case. Or do you mean something else?

In that case, I think one could use use a labeled block to `break`
out, not sure if `try` blocks will allow an easier way.

We have a case of such a `return` within the closure at `rust/rust` in
`file.rs`:

    from_kernel_result! {
        let off =3D match whence as u32 {
            bindings::SEEK_SET =3D> SeekFrom::Start(offset.try_into()?),
            bindings::SEEK_CUR =3D> SeekFrom::Current(offset),
            bindings::SEEK_END =3D> SeekFrom::End(offset),
            _ =3D> return Err(EINVAL),
        };
        ...
        Ok(off as bindings::loff_t)
    }

Cheers,
Miguel