Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-211735-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:02:52 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, rafael@kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
	russell.h.weight@intel.com, ojeda@kernel.org, alex.gaynor@gmail.com,
	wedsonaf@gmail.com, gary@garyguo.net, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com,
	benno.lossin@proton.me, a.hindborg@samsung.com,
	aliceryhl@google.com, airlied@gmail.com, fujita.tomonori@gmail.com,
	pstanner@redhat.com, ajanulgu@redhat.com, lyude@redhat.com,
	rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: add abstraction for struct device
Message-ID: <2024061245-kangaroo-clothes-76e1@gregkh>
References: <20240610180318.72152-1-dakr@redhat.com>
 <20240610180318.72152-2-dakr@redhat.com>
 <ZmdID8AlXtoxUfC1@boqun-archlinux>
 <ZmhPW9yq7y6jbmIg@pollux>
 <2024061136-unbridle-confirm-c653@gregkh>
 <Zmh3oN9sWamaYHOD@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
 <d74edb73-1dba-43f4-a50c-36354c39d758@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d74edb73-1dba-43f4-a50c-36354c39d758@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 04:51:42PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 6/11/24 18:13, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 03:29:22PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 03:21:31PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > ...hence, I agree we should indeed add to the #Invariants and #Safety section
> > > > that `->release` must be callable  from any thread.
> > > > 
> > > > However, this is just theory, do we actually have cases where `device::release`
> > 
> > @Danilo, right, it's only theorical, but it's good to call it out since
> > it's the requirement for a safe Rust abstraction.
> 
> Similar to my previous reply, if we want to call this out as safety requirement
> in `Device::from_raw`, we probably want to add it to the documentation of the C
> `struct device`, such that we can argue that this is an invariant of C's
> `struct device`.
> 
> Otherwise we'd have to write something like:
> 
> "It must also be ensured that the `->release` function of a `struct device` can
> be called from any non-atomic context. While not being officially documented this
> is guaranteed by the invariant of `struct device`."

In the 20+ years of the driver model being part of the kernel, I don't
think this has come up yet, so maybe you can call the release function
in irq context.  I don't know, I was just guessing :)

So let's not go adding constraints that we just do not have please.
Same goes for the C code, so the rust code is no different here.

thanks,

greg k-h