Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231206-rb-new-condvar-methods-v1-0-33a4cab7fdaa@google.com>
 <20231206-rb-new-condvar-methods-v1-2-33a4cab7fdaa@google.com>
 <1dd1a3e8-ef9a-4e89-891f-b49d82acc5f8@gmail.com> <CAH5fLgijsRK3funsGuG6nbK26C+s6m0nO0i83RYD2cO3z7L22Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <F8K3EZWwaRdB3qwYwk7P9GGQUc83MNW4XLeqRHj6QsA6WtCtpweykXLuM5sj2RbpRu3y3OoFy6gmCtaV2tBA1sxGFeieUnTdaY2yGVSCXQ4=@proton.me>
In-Reply-To: <F8K3EZWwaRdB3qwYwk7P9GGQUc83MNW4XLeqRHj6QsA6WtCtpweykXLuM5sj2RbpRu3y3OoFy6gmCtaV2tBA1sxGFeieUnTdaY2yGVSCXQ4=@proton.me>
From:   Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:45:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5fLghuRjZHg3BgowvDiAez3ukhm7PEegRB5G9ZbwSCXfAHVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: sync: add `CondVar::wait_timeout`
To:     Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>
Cc:     Tiago Lam <tiagolam@gmail.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>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:27=E2=80=AFAM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.m=
e> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/23 08:37, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:05=E2=80=AFPM Tiago Lam <tiagolam@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> >> On 06/12/2023 10:09, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> >>> +/// The return type of `wait_timeout`.
> >>> +pub enum CondVarTimeoutResult {
> >>> +    /// The timeout was reached.
> >>> +    Timeout,
> >>> +    /// Somebody woke us up.
> >>> +    Woken {
> >>> +        /// Remaining sleep duration.
> >>> +        jiffies: u64,
> >>> +    },
> >>> +    /// A signal occurred.
> >>> +    Signal {
> >>> +        /// Remaining sleep duration.
> >>> +        jiffies: u64,
> >>> +    },
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Is `Signal` and `Woken` only going to hold a single value? Would it be
> >> best represented as a tuple struct instead, like so?
> >>
> >>      pub enum CondVarTimeoutResult {
> >>          /// The timeout was reached.
> >>          Timeout,
> >>          /// Somebody woke us up.
> >>          Woken (u64),
> >>          /// A signal occurred.
> >>          Signal (u64),
> >>      }
> >
> > I could do that, but I like the explicitly named version as it makes
> > it clear that the unit is jiffies.
>
> Why not use `type Jiffies =3D u64;` until we have proper bindings for
> them? That way we can have both.

I do not mind adding and using a type alias, but I still think the
named fields are better.

Alice