On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 07:01:52PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 09:54:58AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Christian Schrefl wrote:
> > > On 26.04.25 3:30 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > Implement an unsafe direct accessor for the data stored within the
> > > > Revocable.
> > > >
> > > > This is useful for cases where we can proof that the data stored within
> > > > the Revocable is not and cannot be revoked for the duration of the
> > > > lifetime of the returned reference.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > The explicit lifetimes in access() probably don't serve a practical
> > > > purpose, but I found them to be useful for documentation purposes.
> > > > ---> rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > > > index 971d0dc38d83..33535de141ce 100644
> > > > --- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > > > +++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > > > @@ -139,6 +139,18 @@ pub fn try_access_with<R, F: FnOnce(&T) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> Option<R> {
> > > > self.try_access().map(|t| f(&*t))
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /// Directly access the revocable wrapped object.
> > > > + ///
> > > > + /// # Safety
> > > > + ///
> > > > + /// The caller must ensure this [`Revocable`] instance hasn't been revoked and won't be revoked
> > > > + /// for the duration of `'a`.
> > > > + pub unsafe fn access<'a, 's: 'a>(&'s self) -> &'a T {
> > > I'm not sure if the `'s` lifetime really carries much meaning here.
> > > I find just (explicit) `'a` on both parameter and return value is clearer to me,
> > > but I'm not sure what others (particularly those not very familiar with rust)
> > > think of this.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't think we need two lifetimes here, the following version
> > should be fine (with implicit lifetime):
> >
> > pub unsafe fn access(&self) -> &T { ... }
> >
> > , because if you do:
> >
> > let revocable: &'1 Revocable = ...;
> > ...
> > let t: &'2 T = unsafe { revocable.access() };
> >
> > '1 should already outlive '2 (i.e. '1: '2).
>
> Yes, this is indeed sufficient, that's why I wrote
>
> "The explicit lifetimes in access() probably don't serve a practical
> purpose, but I found them to be useful for documentation purposes."
>
> below the commit message. :)
>
Sorry, I overlooked.
> Any opinions in terms of documentation purposes?
>
I think for access() the explicit lifetimes is unnecessary, because it's
a one-lifetime case, the two explicit lifetimes would make a simple case
looking complicated.
For access_with(), that's needed and a good idea.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Boqun
> > >
> > > Either way:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Christian Schrefl <chrisi.schrefl@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > + // SAFETY: By the safety requirement of this function it is guaranteed that
> > > > + // `self.data.get()` is a valid pointer to an instance of `T`.
> > > > + unsafe { &*self.data.get() }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > /// # Safety
> > > > ///
> > > > /// Callers must ensure that there are no more concurrent users of the revocable object.
> > >
