On Tue Jul 1, 2025 at 6:27 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:43 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately this is something for Miguel to decide.
>
> Only if you all cannot get to an agreement ;)
:)
> If Andreas wants to have it already added, then I would say just mark
> it `unsafe` as Benno recommends (possibly with an overbearing
> precondition), given it has proven subtle/forgettable enough and that,
> if I understand correctly, it would actually become unsafe if someone
> "just" added "reasonably-looking code" elsewhere.
Yeah, if we added code that ran at the same time as the parameter
parsing (such as custom parameter parsing or a way to start a "thread"
before the parsing is completed) it would be a problem.
> That way we have an incentive to make it safe later on and, more
> importantly, to think again about it when such a patch lands,
> justifying it properly. And it could plausibly protect out-of-tree
> users, too.
>
> This is all assuming that we will not have many users of this added
> right away (in a cycle or two), i.e. assuming it will be easy to
> change callers later on (if only to remove the `unsafe {}`).
Yeah we would add internal synchronization and could keep the API the
same (except removing unsafe of course).
---
Cheers,
Benno
