On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 3:57 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 5:10 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 10:15:53AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 5:16 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 06:03:22AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > > > > > Implement `HasWork::work_container_of` in `impl_has_work!`, narrowing > > > > > the interface of `HasWork` and replacing pointer arithmetic with > > > > > `container_of!`. Remove the provided implementation of > > > > > `HasWork::get_work_offset` without replacement; an implementation is > > > > > already generated in `impl_has_work!`. Remove the `Self: Sized` bound on > > > > > `HasWork::work_container_of` which was apparently necessary to access > > > > > `OFFSET` as `OFFSET` no longer exists. > > > > > > > > > > A similar API change was discussed on the hrtimer series[1]. > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250224-hrtimer-v3-v6-12-rc2-v9-1-5bd3bf0ce6cc@xxxxxxxxxx/ [1] > > > > > Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Tested-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > rust/kernel/workqueue.rs | 45 ++++++++++++--------------------------------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/workqueue.rs b/rust/kernel/workqueue.rs > > > > > index f98bd02b838f..1d640dbdc6ad 100644 > > > > > --- a/rust/kernel/workqueue.rs > > > > > +++ b/rust/kernel/workqueue.rs > > > > > @@ -429,51 +429,23 @@ pub unsafe fn raw_get(ptr: *const Self) -> *mut bindings::work_struct { > > > > > /// > > > > > /// # Safety > > > > > /// > > > > > -/// The [`OFFSET`] constant must be the offset of a field in `Self` of type [`Work<T, ID>`]. The > > > > > -/// methods on this trait must have exactly the behavior that the definitions given below have. > > > > > +/// The methods on this trait must have exactly the behavior that the definitions given below have. > > > > > > > > This wording probably needs to be rephrased. You got rid of the > > > > definitions that sentence refers to. > > > > > > I don't follow. What definitions was it referring to? I interpreted it > > > as having referred to all the items: constants *and* methods. > > > > I meant for it to refer to the default implementations of the methods. > > > > > Could you propose an alternate phrasing? > > > > I guess the requirements are something along the lines of raw_get_work > > must return a value pointer, and it must roundtrip with > > raw_container_of. > > What is a value pointer? Sorry, I meant "valid".
